Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
No, it's not a straw man, it's a simple question. If the answer is that your mind is made up and there is no evidence that will convince you, then there isn't much point to continuing the conversation. All I can say is that I find the evidence is inline with my conclusion. If you don't think so, that's fine.
Actually, you very much are trying to prove something. You are rather obviously trying to prove that I am wrong. you said
"Do you really think that Judge Cote, given the task of reviewing all the mountains of evidence submitted for the pretrial, and given the task of presenting a preliminary opinion at the request of Apple and the DOJ, should have done this without writing anything down? "
which appears to be implying that draft was simply her writing notes. If she had actually been using the word draft in that context, then she would be guilt of very sloppy wording in her opinion, something I don't think anyone has accused her of. You also say "even if she did write a draft, that doesn't prove that it was the final opinion". Perhaps, but the fact that most of the opinion doesn't address the evidence from the trial is quite suggestive.
As I said, you seem to have a much, much higher standard of proof than Judge Cote. You seem to want a video clip of Judge Cote coming out and saying "Yes, I wrote most of the opinion before the trial" and anything else is waved away.
|
No. I meant that you were asking me to present you with a straw man.
You wanted me to come up with a level of proof that you could then dismiss.
That's irrelevant. We're investigating the evidence that you say you provided, not searching for more.
You have said repeatedly that you have previously presented links to evidence
here on MobileRead that
proved Judge Cote wrote the majority of her final judgement in advance, accusing her of bias and pre-judging in her final decision.
We have now unearthed the links that you did provide, detailed above, and you have agreed that the main basis for your belief was the footnote in the final judgement where Cote refers to her draft opinion for the pretrial.
Fine.
You claim that this is the proof that you need, even though to make it so you have to change both the sense and the context of the words Judge Cote used.
That's OK. It convinces you. It certainly doesn't convince me, and anyone reading this thread has the links gathered together so that they can make up their own mind.
Graham