14 Jun '13 20:22>
The whole thing is like a well-executed magician's illusion. The result is too outlandish to be any but cheating, even if we can't figure out how he does it.
Originally posted by RJHindsIn the post I replied to earlier you claimed that someone found liable is at fault, and linked this to criminal guilt. My point is that someone found vicariously liable is such despite not being at fault, but because they are the nearest available person. The first form was where an employer can be held vicariously liable for their employees actions. The tort may be the fault of the employee, but the employer has this strange kind of no blame liability. Civil liability is not equivalent to criminal guilt, otherwise the burdens of proof would be the same.
I am not a Lawyer so I don"t know all the legal jargon. I am just stating my belief on the subject, wrong or right. In my book, there is no need for 100% certainty to find a person guilty of doing wrong. O.J. Simpson was found quilty by public opinion, even though he was found not quilty in a court of law. The not quilty verdict does not mean he was fo ...[text shortened]... it was not by way of negligence or accident either. It was by way of murder.
The Instructor
Originally posted by ExumaTheories mean nothing without hard evidence.
So if his chin is in his non moving hand the whole time, say its his left - tiny blue tooth speaker bud in the left ear, a little sleight of hand puts it in as he leans in to the game and pulls it out at the end. Wireless see. transmitter is someones keyring. Then the piece de resistance - one of the commentator's team is on the payroll, the guy entering th ...[text shortened]... cheating. Delay doesn't matter because the cheater is in the room. That's my working theory
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI never claimed any CRIMINAL guilt. Since when is cheating at chess a criminal offense? I was only referring to plain old guilt and innocence outside of a criminal court.
In the post I replied to earlier you claimed that someone found liable is at fault, and linked this to criminal guilt. My point is that someone found vicariously liable is such despite not being at fault, but because they are the nearest available person. The first form was where an employer can be held vicariously liable for their employees actions. The ...[text shortened]... liability is not equivalent to criminal guilt, otherwise the burdens of proof would be the same.
Originally posted by RJHindslol, since when have you ever accepted hard evidence.
Theories mean nothing without hard evidence.
The Instructor
Originally posted by woodypusherCochrane - If it doesn't fit, you got to acquit.
lol, since when have you ever accepted hard evidence.
It all boils down to what is enough evidence. The astronomical odds of him matching Houdini eliminates any doubt in me. The fact that no one has figured out how exactly he does it (yet) is enough for doubt for others.
There will always be supporters and detractors.
I thought there was suffic ...[text shortened]... wer...maybe. Like Lance Armstrong, Borislav Ivanov will eventually be caught or admit it.
Originally posted by RJHindsBugs Bunny - What a maroon.
Cochrane - If it doesn't fit, you got to acquit.
RJHinds - If you can't show the matchup, you need to shutup.
The Instructor