Analysis of Rossi v. Darden opening statements begins

The plan here is to review Rossi v. Darden, to help readers make sense of what happened. There was a blizzard of filings, pleadings, documents in evidence, depositions, etc. Many depositions exist in many redactions; our Depositions page provides a list of these, and, at the top, links to complete or, for some depositions, we do not have the complete deposition, so then a merged compilation is provided, so the reader can see all that was deposed by a given individual. (Thanks to Bruce H. for the compilation work).

I just pulled out the opening statements of the parties from the trial record, now linked from Opening statements.

Study pages will be created for each statement including links to evidence, etc. These pages will also include opinion, but the design is for them to be, overall, neutral-by-inclusion rather than neutral-by-exclusion (i.e., more like Wikiversity than Wikipedia). (If some faction elects not to participate, that faction’s views might be under-represented. TANSTAAFL.)

RvD: Opening statements

The opening statements of the parties in Rossi v. Darden have been extracted from the full record to make study of them easier.

On Day 1 of the trial, June 28, 2017, the Plaintiff and Defendant gave opening statements to the jury. On Day 2, June 29, this jury was dismissed due to a mistrial, too many jurors had been lost for various reasons. These statements became moot, but they are here in the event that anyone wishes to compare them with the later statements.

Rossi_opening 1
IH_opening 1

On Day 3, June 30, a new jury was selected and all the parties gave opening statements.

Rossi_opening 2
IH_opening 2
JMP_opening
Fabiani_opening

The intention is to annotate these statements with references to evidence in the record, where this can be identified. Any reader is welcome and invited to suggest corrections or additions.

On Day 4, July 5, as the evidentiary phase of the trial was about to begin, the parties agreed to ask the court to dismiss all claims with prejudice (i.e., those claims could not be raised again), with the court not being responsible for enforcing any agreement. So the judge dismissed the jury.

Mistrial!

See also RvD trial day 2 (Mistrial)

10 jurors were selected yesterday. First 3 of them requested to be excused, that was known yesterday. Pace agonized over allowing this. On the one hand … and on the other…

Pace suggested interviewing them (I.e., as in the original selection.) Altonaga said she had no questions, it was all written and clear.

Then Altonaga announced there were two more. At this point, all the lawyers agreed: mistrial.

Lawyers in court at 9 AM, Friday the 30th, to go over juror questions. Selection begins at 10 AM. If that finishes, opening statements, deja vu all over again. More when I get home, I’m sitting outside the courthouse.


I have a few minutes before leaving for the Court. Reading the LENR Forum discussions,  a few clarifications and brief comments.

The trial actually started with 10 jurors seated on the 28th. The Judge read the case summary (see the docket), then Rossi and IH presented opening arguments (Chaiken and Pace respectively). So there was a bit more than an hour in actual trial.  Then, before adjourning, the Judge noted requests from jurors to be excused due to conflicts, said that this would be addressed in the morning at 10 AM. There was some hesitancy on IH’s part to accepting the requests. Pace was really unsure, huddled with Darden. Then the Judge said there were two more requests,  and all the attorneys agreed on a mistrial. I had a chat with one of the lawyers, who pointed to the real problem: jurors were not prescreened for “five week trial.” So a lot of time was wasted interviewing jurors who weren’t ready to serve. We’ll see what happens today.

Chaiken said that jurors will see evidence from Penon. That might be the video deposition.

Practice makes perfect. Chaiken and Pace get to present their opening statements to a new jury. The jury will again be cautioned that lawyer claims are not evidence. When I get a transcript I may be handing out some Pants on Fire awards.

Shanahan’s remarks are totally off-topic, but Jed is right: Shanahan is fringe,  and keeps himself there by not actually seeking communication and agreement, merely claiming he has been unfairly rejected. Ironic, eh? I’ve been pointing out the irony for years, and have many times offered to assist Shanahan in settling issues. Yes, “random CCS” was an error. There are errors aplenty on all sides. So? There are places where a full and complete discussion can take place. I created one on Wikiversity. Shanahan ignored it. On Wikipedia, Shanahan kept attempting to put information in the Cold fusion article that did not meet Wikipedia guidelines. It was not just “CFers” who removed it, it was ordinary Wikipedia editors. An article on CF calorimetry with his ideas was deleted by JzG, a very much anti-CF administrator. I rescued it for work and  review. My reward? Shanahan supported my ban.

There is something special about actually meeting Rossi and the others. This is no longer dealing in abstractions, these are real human beings.

The document referred to as the Cassarino (Ampenergo) deposition is actually a much longer document containing all the depositions IH is planning to introduce, with annotations showing attorney objections, etc. Rossi, because of “technical difficulties,” planned to present that in person to  the Court.

Many writers (on all sides) are cherry-picking the evidence. One example is IHFB’s continued insistence that Woodford considered the Rossi technology “core” for their investment; in fact, the statement in an email has a clearer interpretation: Lamacraft was commiserating with Darden or  Vaughn (I forget which) over the disappointment, because Rossi was core to the original investment. Not the Woodford investment.

Again and again, it is asserted that IH used the Doral test to recruit investors. There was only one major investment after Doral began, and that was Woodford, and it is quite apparent that Woodford insisted on this being an investment into a UK limited liability company, which would then own Industrial Heat. Not in IPH, which had a contractual relationship with Rossi (and which was the original idea). IH did not actually use Doral to raise money, but Lamacraft wanted to see Doral, I’m sure. The Ampenergo notes (I have covered them in detail) show that Lamacraft was not particularly impressed.

And I must leave now. I have no internet access while I am in the Court, until I retrieve my phone from security and walk outside, and they would not be pleased by retrieving it for a few minutes…. I may still apply for a press pass, but until I have one …. I have limited facilities here.

 

I posted on JONP June 27

I wrote:

Bob Belovich, perhaps I made that call, I did publish this on coldfusioncommunity.net at 9:20 AM Monday. I was informed, last week, of the change to Wednesday, so it is odd that Dr. Rossi apparently did not know. (His comment here is why I checked, first thing Monday.) Judge Altonaga’s office told me that Jury selection would begin at 12:30 PM.

I waited until comments after this were approved. This comment was, then, likely “spammed.” Recent comments approved after Rossi said he would not be attending to the blog (but someone would be approving posts, or spamming them Continue reading “I posted on JONP June 27”