Several posters to the chess newsgroups have been defending Paul
Truong, saying that the evidence is insufficient to prove him guilty.

Today, several of those same people such as Guy Mason and Larry Parr
have said that, oh, by the way, they have never read the Mottershead
Report.

This is truly astounding. People who claim that there must be
alternative explanations and the evidence presented is not proof
positive, now state that they have never looked at the evidence.

The Mottershead Report has been available online since October. It can
be found he

http://www.shamema.com/mottershead.pdf.

I challenge anyone to read all ten pages and then come back here and
state again that the Mottershead Report does not constitute 100% proof
positive that Paul Truong is guilty of the offenses charged.

Sam Sloan

EXCUSE ME, SAM

Today, several of those same people such as Guy Mason and Larry Parr
have
said that, oh, by the way, they have never read the Mottershead
Report. -- Sam Sloan


Please provide any citation by me on this forum that I never read it.

Also do you mean Guy Macon or Guy Mason?


samsloan wrote:
Several posters to the chess newsgroups have been defending Paul
Truong, saying that the evidence is insufficient to prove him guilty.

Today, several of those same people such as Guy Mason and Larry Parr
have said that, oh, by the way, they have never read the Mottershead
Report.

This is truly astounding. People who claim that there must be
alternative explanations and the evidence presented is not proof
positive, now state that they have never looked at the evidence.

The Mottershead Report has been available online since October. It can
be found he

http://www.shamema.com/mottershead.pdf.

I challenge anyone to read all ten pages and then come back here and
state again that the Mottershead Report does not constitute 100% proof
positive that Paul Truong is guilty of the offenses charged.

Sam Sloan