That darn Dittmer!

[Econ101]

We are up to Four pages now and not one shred of evidence that the orginal article was wrong. Lots of discrediting remarks as usual about the author but not one point to convince anyone that Dittmer is wrong about Cox. :roll: :lol:

Where is the shred of evidence that he was right, Tam? Even if he was right, what does that have to do with anything important?

Did you read the article?

Now, the judge didn't say Cox was mistaken, he said Cox "intentionally misquoted published articles."

A nice way of the judge saying Cox LIED. For whatever reason, R-Calfs source of information LIED!

As far as as the "shred of evidence" Dittmer is right?

Whatever happened to the presumption of innocense until proven guilty? Prove somone right?
:roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bill, before going on the witness stand sometimes witness notes are handed over to the opposition lawyers. I really wanted to get to the bottom of the allegation that dittmer has here. Were the quotation marks something that was not really meant for anyone but Cox? If so, the whole article misrepresents the facts. I don't know the circumstances that dittmer is referring to and how the quotes fit into either the case or the evidence presented. That is why I am asking. I want to know exactly how the quotes were used and if they were really intended to be Cox actually quoting someone or for him to use the quotes to help himself remember something on the stand.

I am only asking to clarify the situation that dittmer refers to.