Hi Ed:
On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Edwin Pozharski wrote:
Bill,
presumption of innocence applies when person's life or freedom is
at stake, other words - when you are accused of a crime. It does
not apply in many other circumstances (for instance, when applying
for short-term visa to enter the US, it is an applicant's
responsibility to prove to the consular officer that he is not
planning to stay in the US illegally - so one has to prove the
absence of intent to commit a crime in the future).
If someone is accused of having fabricated data, which is to have
committed fraud, quite a bit is in fact at stake. Once can at least
expect to lose one's job, and if convicted of criminal fraud, this
could involve a fine or even imprisonment (defrauding a government
funding agency I would expect is a pretty major felony in both the US
and in Europe).
To follow the legal analogy, does the letter of Gros et al. proves
beyond reasonable doubt that the structure in question is indeed a
fabrication? As you said, it is a compelling case.
No, I said it "appears" (to me) to be "a compelling case", but I have
only heard one side of it. Have you heard the other?
Now, if these defendants are indeed innocent, they should have
exculpatory evidence in their possession - the diffraction images.
If they produce such evidence - the case is dismissed. If not,
ladies and gentlemen of the jury may and will find them guilty.
What jury? Us? Who is the judge? Do you not see why this is
problematic?
I agree with you 100% that anyone is innocent until proven guilty.
In this case, however, the trial is over and jury is deliberating.
What's the verdict?
What trial? All I see is the functional equivalent of an
indictment. Actually, less than that, because in the US at least, an
indictment is handed down by a Grand Jury after examining evidence
and subpoenaing witnesses. We (if you are to suggest the analogy
that we are the Grand Jury) have done nothing of this sort.
Sorry, the analogy is flawed, and dangerously so.
We are qualified to judge science, but that does not endow us with
the ability to establish criminal intent, which is paramount in a
fraud case.
Bill
Regards,
Ed.
William Scott wrote:
No one knows definitively if this was fabricated.
Well, at least one person does.
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.
Bill Scott
--
Edwin Pozharski, PhD, Assistant Professor
University of Maryland, Baltimore
----------------------------------------------
When the Way is forgotten duty and justice appear;
Then knowledge and wisdom are born along with hypocrisy.
When harmonious relationships dissolve then respect and devotion
arise;
When a nation falls to chaos then loyalty and patriotism are born.
------------------------------ / Lao Tse /
