It seems that a public discussion with points and counterpoints
presented openly and fairly is in complete adherence to the ideals of
due process. Since this discussion is not deciding the criminal fate of
any individual, it does not seem necessary to defer it to any political
government. Also, were any criminal charges ever brought forth, one
might think an innocent defendent would appreciate the benefit of the
world's experts pondering the facts in an open forum.
James
William Scott wrote:
But I agree, it is important to keep in mind that the proper venue for
determining guilt or innocence in the case of fraud is the court system.
Until fairly recently, the idea of presumed innocence and the right to
cross-examine accusers and witnesses has been considered fundamental to
civil society.
The case certainly sounds compelling, but this is all the more reason to
adhere to these ideals.
--
James Stroud
UCLA-DOE Institute for Genomics and Proteomics
Box 951570
Los Angeles, CA 90095
http://www.jamesstroud.com/
