Brett Bellmore
Member
No, having read his response, his argument is that we should discount the panel's findings because of problems he lists, and the anti-gun bias merely explains why they did such a bad job.
John Lott RESPONDS
- Thread starter TDPerk
- Start date
- Status
cuchulainn
Member
If that were, indeed, the extent of Lott's response, then he would be off base. However, after raising the bias specter (which, yes, is a distraction), he gives about 20 paragraphs (eight listed items) dealing with substantive points of the panel's work. Now whether he's correct or not is, of course, open to scrutiny, so feel free to scrutinize it.
Why don't you start with the eight substantive points that Lott lists?
TDPerk
Member
TimLambert wrote: "So tell me, if Lott thought that the committee had been set up to "deal with" him, why did he, at the time, and later in his book say that it had been designed to ignore his research?"
Both ideas are perfectly compatible. In fact, both are almost cumpulsory for the panel, after all, if they acknowledged his work and data, they'd have to show that it had faults in order to reach their conslusion.
I'm wondering how long it will be before the people quixotically insisting Lott is a liar also brand Wilson a liar, since his criticisms of the panel tend to take heat off of Lott.
In the "did too, did not" category of argument, my inclinations are to believe the person making the most sense in other topics--and persons advocating gun control exclude themselves from consideration.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
Both ideas are perfectly compatible. In fact, both are almost cumpulsory for the panel, after all, if they acknowledged his work and data, they'd have to show that it had faults in order to reach their conslusion.
I'm wondering how long it will be before the people quixotically insisting Lott is a liar also brand Wilson a liar, since his criticisms of the panel tend to take heat off of Lott.
In the "did too, did not" category of argument, my inclinations are to believe the person making the most sense in other topics--and persons advocating gun control exclude themselves from consideration.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
Last edited:
TimLambert
Member
TDPerk, thanks for proving my point. All Lott has to do is claim that the panel is stacked with gun-control advocates and you think he has won the argument. (Though if the panel was made up of gun-control advocates, you would think he would be able to produce examples of them, well, advocating gun control.) And no-one is going to be attacking Wilson because Lott has misrepresented what Wilson's dissent.
cuchulainn, do you understand Lott's arguments in those points? For example, do you know what a RESET test is?
cuchulainn, do you understand Lott's arguments in those points? For example, do you know what a RESET test is?
TimLambert
Member
Oh, and TDPerk, here are Lott's exact words from The Bias Against Guns:
How is this compatible with his new claim that the panel was set up to "deal with" his research?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Tim, "Rather than comparing how firearms facilitates both harm and self-defence, the panel was only asked to examine "firearm violence" seems not only compatible with Lott's claim, but explanatory...
That is, "deal with" via ignoring anything but criminal violence.
The only reason I jump in here on this is that this particular tactic has been common with the anti-gun crowd since before the arguments in debate over the GCA '68. Me? I don't imagine I've heard over two- or five-hundred variations on this (bleep!) theme, going back to 1963...
Art
That is, "deal with" via ignoring anything but criminal violence.
The only reason I jump in here on this is that this particular tactic has been common with the anti-gun crowd since before the arguments in debate over the GCA '68. Me? I don't imagine I've heard over two- or five-hundred variations on this (bleep!) theme, going back to 1963...
Art
Brett Bellmore
Member
publius
Member
Sure, that's where I test how long it takes me to go from an empty magazine to a full magazine and a chambered round.
cuchulainn
Member
Tim, I'll take that to mean you have no interest in discussing the eight substantive points in Lott's response.
TimLambert
Member
Art, you might want to look at Lott's claim again:
So, no, it wasn't "deal with" by ignoring it, but by examining his data and models and finding them inadequate.
Brett Bellmore
Member
Allegedly, according to Lott, whether they were or not. And, we aren't missing the fact that you STILL haven't addressed the substantiative points Lott made.
TimLambert
Member
To go through Lott's "substantive" points:
1. Lott misrepresents Wilson's dissent. Wilson only disagreed with the other 13 panel members about whether there was evidence that carry laws reduced murder. He did not dissent from their conclusion that there was no credible evidence that the law reduced violent crime, rape, robbery and assaults. Lott wrote:
Lott also claims that including all the observations instead of throwing out the ones with zero crimes biases the results. This is precisely backwards. The Plassmann and Tideman paper he cites shows that it is throwing out a large fraction of observation that biases the results.
2. If the mistake in figure 6.1 is the biggest mistake that Lott can find in the report then it is in very good shape. The figure is supposed to illustrate the down up down pattern in crime under the hybrid model. It correctly shows this pattern; the only mistake is that the increase in the up part is a little less than shown in the picture.
3. Yes, the committee's comment agrees with the statements in the original paper. However, Lott had abandoned that postion and conducted tests that show that you do need to use clustering. (OK, Lott won't admit that that is what is tests show, but his original postion was that such tests were unnecessary.)
4. Lott claims
5. This is missing the point. The hybrid model generalizes the dummy and trend model and Ayres and Donohue show that this more general model is incorrect (and hence so are the dummy and spline models).
6. Lott doesn't understand what the RESET tests mean. This is explained by Hoowitz. Lott doesn't get it.
7. Not relevant. This does not show that the no-control variable results are incorrect.
8. So they wouldn't let Lott ask his loaded question. Whoopee. Lott has way more opportunities to present his view than the committee.
1. Lott misrepresents Wilson's dissent. Wilson only disagreed with the other 13 panel members about whether there was evidence that carry laws reduced murder. He did not dissent from their conclusion that there was no credible evidence that the law reduced violent crime, rape, robbery and assaults. Lott wrote:
Complete quote from Wilson:
And the results Wilson is referring to are those for murder, not for other crimes.
Lott also claims that including all the observations instead of throwing out the ones with zero crimes biases the results. This is precisely backwards. The Plassmann and Tideman paper he cites shows that it is throwing out a large fraction of observation that biases the results.
2. If the mistake in figure 6.1 is the biggest mistake that Lott can find in the report then it is in very good shape. The figure is supposed to illustrate the down up down pattern in crime under the hybrid model. It correctly shows this pattern; the only mistake is that the increase in the up part is a little less than shown in the picture.
3. Yes, the committee's comment agrees with the statements in the original paper. However, Lott had abandoned that postion and conducted tests that show that you do need to use clustering. (OK, Lott won't admit that that is what is tests show, but his original postion was that such tests were unnecessary.)
4. Lott claims
The panel doesn't mention that because Plassmann and Whitley don't say that. I searched their paper for "major" and "problems" just to be sure.
5. This is missing the point. The hybrid model generalizes the dummy and trend model and Ayres and Donohue show that this more general model is incorrect (and hence so are the dummy and spline models).
6. Lott doesn't understand what the RESET tests mean. This is explained by Hoowitz. Lott doesn't get it.
7. Not relevant. This does not show that the no-control variable results are incorrect.
8. So they wouldn't let Lott ask his loaded question. Whoopee. Lott has way more opportunities to present his view than the committee.
SkyDaver
Member
TimLambert wrote this:
Then later wrote
It seems that Tim doubts Lott's statement about the Cook/Nagin conversation.
It seems ironic to me that Tim is claiming Lott heard no such thing, but then
we have no proof that Tim really did contact Dan Nagin, or that Nagin responded with that statement.
Then later wrote
It seems that Tim doubts Lott's statement about the Cook/Nagin conversation.
It seems ironic to me that Tim is claiming Lott heard no such thing, but then
we have no proof that Tim really did contact Dan Nagin, or that Nagin responded with that statement.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
"Lott misrepresents Wilson's dissent. Wilson only disagreed with the other 13 panel members about whether there was evidence that carry laws reduced murder. He did not dissent from their conclusion that there was no credible evidence that the law reduced violent crime, rape, robbery and assaults."
If these 13 panel members concluded there's no credible evidence about reductions in violent crime, rape, etd., they paid no attention to two facets of real-world experience in Florida.
First, the Orlando experience from the 1960s/1970s. From police advice, women learned to shoot handguns, and carried them. Attempted rapes fell toward zero.
Fast forward to Florida's CHL laws, beginning some ten years ago: Violent crimes dropped at a rate faster than the national average drop. Interviews with criminals elicited comments along the line of "Uncertainty makes us pick on tourists; they're unarmed."
Lott's a nice kid, and I'm glad he has his viewpoints. It's nice when some statistician-type shows causal relationships within reality--"the world as it is". His work is superfluous, really, since any rational observer has already reached his conclusions with no help from outsiders.
Lott's conclusions are correct, and I really don't care if he "got there accidental or on purpose".
There's always some bunch of detractors anytime somebody puts together some sort of data supporting personal self defense. About all I have for them is a variant of the ancient Abbott and Costello bit: "Who should I believe? You, or my own lying eyes?"
, Art
If these 13 panel members concluded there's no credible evidence about reductions in violent crime, rape, etd., they paid no attention to two facets of real-world experience in Florida.
First, the Orlando experience from the 1960s/1970s. From police advice, women learned to shoot handguns, and carried them. Attempted rapes fell toward zero.
Fast forward to Florida's CHL laws, beginning some ten years ago: Violent crimes dropped at a rate faster than the national average drop. Interviews with criminals elicited comments along the line of "Uncertainty makes us pick on tourists; they're unarmed."
Lott's a nice kid, and I'm glad he has his viewpoints. It's nice when some statistician-type shows causal relationships within reality--"the world as it is". His work is superfluous, really, since any rational observer has already reached his conclusions with no help from outsiders.
Lott's conclusions are correct, and I really don't care if he "got there accidental or on purpose".
There's always some bunch of detractors anytime somebody puts together some sort of data supporting personal self defense. About all I have for them is a variant of the ancient Abbott and Costello bit: "Who should I believe? You, or my own lying eyes?"
, Art
sturmruger
Member
I am a little confused at what is being argued here
I have had the pleasure of hearing Proffesor Lott speak at a public hearing on CCW here in WI. While some of his message was rather technical he made it very clear that initialy he tended to favor gun control on more of a knee jerk reaction level, but after his extensive research he changed his opinion of gun control law and now is an avid supporter of shall issue legislation all over the US. He is a great man with more credibility then he will ever need in my book. I even purchased his book and found it very informative.
I have had the pleasure of hearing Proffesor Lott speak at a public hearing on CCW here in WI. While some of his message was rather technical he made it very clear that initialy he tended to favor gun control on more of a knee jerk reaction level, but after his extensive research he changed his opinion of gun control law and now is an avid supporter of shall issue legislation all over the US. He is a great man with more credibility then he will ever need in my book. I even purchased his book and found it very informative.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
sturmruger, while I'm not familiar with his postings at other websites, Tim Lambert has gained a reputation as an anti-gun sort who seems bent on tearing down Lott's work. While I don't personally know this is the case, that's what being bruited about...
In Tim Lambert's defense, it's possible that he's a statistician who simply disagrees with Lott's methodology. Regardless, Lott's conclusions are correct and thus the endeavor is not particularly important...
It's the usual Internet "picking fly-poop out of pepper" that happens to involve a subject near and dear to THR folks.
, Art
In Tim Lambert's defense, it's possible that he's a statistician who simply disagrees with Lott's methodology. Regardless, Lott's conclusions are correct and thus the endeavor is not particularly important...
It's the usual Internet "picking fly-poop out of pepper" that happens to involve a subject near and dear to THR folks.
, Artcuchulainn
Member
Lott does seem to exagerate Wilson's dissent on the point of crime in general versus murder. Wilson's summary: "In sum, I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate, though their effect on other crimes is ambiguous."
No, Lott shouldn't have exagerated. However, the fact remains that Wilson supports Lott (if only in part), and that's significant -- Lott's over-eagerness does not reduce its significance.
A 7 percent change versus 5 pecent change can be a significant mistake, IMHO. Also note that Lott points to other mistakes that he says are "statistically significant." His concern about mistakes goes beyond figure 6.1.
I’m a little confused here. So do you actually disagree with the committee here, thinking they got it wrong by supporting Lott’s original position? Do you think Lott was correct in changing his position about clustering (did he actually do that?), and now you're upset with him flip-flopping? It would be interesting if you are focusing on the personal (that bad old Lott flip-flopped!) rather than the substantive -- the committee seems to support part of Lott's original work. But I need you to clarify your thinking here.
Both words appear in their paper many times --http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf -- so I have to question whether you actually did the search. Indeed, the phrase "major problem" occurs though not clearly about the regression issue. The phrase "major problems" does not appear.
However -- more substatively
-- regardless of the phrase Plassmann and Whitley chose to use, the facts remain they do find problems with Ayers and Donohue's work, and, according to Lott, the panel ignored this. That's the salient point.
OK, so here you have a disagreement on whether a method is valid. Fair enough, but that hardly merits the rancor you've shown towards Lott.
In any event, Lott is not by himself on this point. As he notes, here too Plassman and Whitley find problems with Ayers and Donohue – a point, he says, the panel again chose to ignore.
It Lott is wrong on this point, fair enough. But the panel ought to have considered those who disagree with his dissenters. To do otherwise does give the appearance (at least) of stacking the evidence against him.
Why doesn't Lott get it? (And don't just point me to Hoowitz, please.)
Why?
1) You misrepresent Lott's complaint. He doesn't complain about not getting a chance to ask a single question (loaded or not). Rather, he complains about none of his questions being asked.
2) Whether he has other outlets for his opinion is beside the point. It still was wrong for the panel to cut off discussion before his questions were presented. Who cares if he can later post them at AEI? The fact would remain that because the panel didn't hear them, they didn't consider them -- and that lack of input might have affected their results.
TDPerk
Member
agricola
Member
You know, I think if Cramer can state:
I think then we are pretty much done here. Lott isnt targetted because of his stance, he is targetted because of his demonstrated lies - of which the "98% claim" is the most well-known. Cramer knows the argument against Lott is not just about the "Mary Rosh" issue and to suggest that it is is misleading
Its also ironic that Cramer cites Lindgren at the end of that piece, and yet Lott has claimed that Lindgren is biased against him (as Tim Lambert showed on post #19 of this thread) because Lindgren looked at his work and found it wanting, as indeed anyone does who looks beyond the words of Lott himself.
As an aside, its worth pointing out that - admittedly in a UK context - Colin Greenwood was demonstrating a long while ago that varying firearms legislation tends to have no positive or negative affect on the rate of crime.
I think then we are pretty much done here. Lott isnt targetted because of his stance, he is targetted because of his demonstrated lies - of which the "98% claim" is the most well-known. Cramer knows the argument against Lott is not just about the "Mary Rosh" issue and to suggest that it is is misleading
Its also ironic that Cramer cites Lindgren at the end of that piece, and yet Lott has claimed that Lindgren is biased against him (as Tim Lambert showed on post #19 of this thread) because Lindgren looked at his work and found it wanting, as indeed anyone does who looks beyond the words of Lott himself.
As an aside, its worth pointing out that - admittedly in a UK context - Colin Greenwood was demonstrating a long while ago that varying firearms legislation tends to have no positive or negative affect on the rate of crime.
longrifleman
Member
If true, and I suspect it is, the cynic in me compels this question: Why do the ruling elites spend so much time and effort trying to disarm the peasants?
I think not for OUR welfare.
TDPerk
Member
Agricola would love for us to be done here...
...so his misrepresentations will go unchallenged.
I urge you to read Mr. Cramer's entire post.
Here is a further quote from Cramer:
"Dr. Lott did a few ethical shortcuts that were not part of his research--such as using the false name Mary Rosh online to puff his book, and to defend himself. Use of pseudonyms isn't a problem for me (although I've never done so). Using a pseudonym to defend a position (as "Mary Rosh" did on occasion) is in the style of the Framers, who often wrote under pseudonyms. Using a pseudonym to puff a book strikes me as tacky. Using a pseudonym and then claiming to be someone else is lying, and unfortunately, once Dr. Lott did that, the gun control attack hounds were on him."
I think this paragraph supports the view that Mr. Cramer feels that the persons making the most hyperbolic claims of John Lott's perfidy are motivated by concerns other than academic integrity--in fact--Mr. Cramer is at some pains to separate his views on Mr. Lott's few ethical lapses, which at worst he views to be tacky, from any accusations that Lott's work lacks integrity.
Given the specially stringent scales Agricola applies to Mr. Lott, if they were to be applied to Agricola...
...then I think we are done with Agricola.
But I ask again of Agricola, because Brett Osborn is someone I beleive Agricola insisted did not exist--although Agricola asserts some expertise in the field--who is Brett Osborn?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
...so his misrepresentations will go unchallenged.
I urge you to read Mr. Cramer's entire post.
Here is a further quote from Cramer:
"Dr. Lott did a few ethical shortcuts that were not part of his research--such as using the false name Mary Rosh online to puff his book, and to defend himself. Use of pseudonyms isn't a problem for me (although I've never done so). Using a pseudonym to defend a position (as "Mary Rosh" did on occasion) is in the style of the Framers, who often wrote under pseudonyms. Using a pseudonym to puff a book strikes me as tacky. Using a pseudonym and then claiming to be someone else is lying, and unfortunately, once Dr. Lott did that, the gun control attack hounds were on him."
I think this paragraph supports the view that Mr. Cramer feels that the persons making the most hyperbolic claims of John Lott's perfidy are motivated by concerns other than academic integrity--in fact--Mr. Cramer is at some pains to separate his views on Mr. Lott's few ethical lapses, which at worst he views to be tacky, from any accusations that Lott's work lacks integrity.
Given the specially stringent scales Agricola applies to Mr. Lott, if they were to be applied to Agricola...
...then I think we are done with Agricola.
But I ask again of Agricola, because Brett Osborn is someone I beleive Agricola insisted did not exist--although Agricola asserts some expertise in the field--who is Brett Osborn?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
agricola
Member
TDPerk,
Please explain where I said Brett Osborn didnt exist?
Brett Osborn does exist, and the reason he is where he is is because of people like you who misrepresent matters regarding self-defence - for the uninitiated, Osborn killed a man who forced his way into a friends home and plead guilty to manslaughter (thus not exposing the evidence to scrutiny) - when asked for a reason, he stated that he had done so because of what he had heard of the Tony Martin case (though, as said above, since we dont know what the evidence was, we are in the dark as to whether or not it was self defence).
We are left therefore with either Osborn was guilty of an assault that occured in other-than self defence, or that he was not guilty and yet plead guilty because of the misinformation spread by elements of the media.
TDPerk I read Cramer's post, which is why I responded to that exact quote in my earlier post (talk about misrepresentation). Cramer knows of the controversy regarding Lott (the 98% claim and others) and yet pretends it doesnt exist. It does, it will not go away and the evidence is clear.
Stop using Lott, start using Kleck, or failing that admit that at the end of the day, if you consider it a right no amount of statistics will prove or disprove its validity - as better people on this board than you have stated.
Please explain where I said Brett Osborn didnt exist?
Brett Osborn does exist, and the reason he is where he is is because of people like you who misrepresent matters regarding self-defence - for the uninitiated, Osborn killed a man who forced his way into a friends home and plead guilty to manslaughter (thus not exposing the evidence to scrutiny) - when asked for a reason, he stated that he had done so because of what he had heard of the Tony Martin case (though, as said above, since we dont know what the evidence was, we are in the dark as to whether or not it was self defence).
We are left therefore with either Osborn was guilty of an assault that occured in other-than self defence, or that he was not guilty and yet plead guilty because of the misinformation spread by elements of the media.
TDPerk I read Cramer's post, which is why I responded to that exact quote in my earlier post (talk about misrepresentation). Cramer knows of the controversy regarding Lott (the 98% claim and others) and yet pretends it doesnt exist. It does, it will not go away and the evidence is clear.
Stop using Lott, start using Kleck, or failing that admit that at the end of the day, if you consider it a right no amount of statistics will prove or disprove its validity - as better people on this board than you have stated.
TimLambert
Member
cuchulainn, yes Lott shouldn't exagerated, but he does this all the time. And when we're trying to figure whether Lott is lying or Nagin is lying, the track record of the two gentlemen is quite relevent.
There are three positions on clustering:
A You don't need it for the reasons given in Lott and Mustard's original paper.
B You do need it
C You must do a statistical to see whether it is necessary.
Lott's original position was A. Then in 2003 he switched to B. Then in 2004 he switched to C. The panel went for A. Lott goes Haha! Vindicated! He could have written that no matter which one the panel went for.
Yes "major" and "problems" accur several times in Plassman and Whitley. I looked at each of them to see if they were saying that there were major problems in the regressions that the panel reported. As far as I can tell, they weren't.
The point about the hybrid model is that A&D concluded that it was not correct. Lott is offering reasons why the hybrid model is incorrect to make it look like A&D were arguing in favour of it and hence were wrong.
On RESET tests Horowitz says that searching for a model that satisifies the tests does not solve the problem. Lott says that he has solved the problem by searching for a modle that satisifies the tests.
On the no-control problem, the results Lott refers to were done on the old data set that only went to 1992 and do not contradict results obained from the data that goes to 2000.
Lott wanted to use the question session to argue that the panel was wrong. That wasn't what the question session was for. It was to help people learn what the findings of the panel were.
There are three positions on clustering:
A You don't need it for the reasons given in Lott and Mustard's original paper.
B You do need it
C You must do a statistical to see whether it is necessary.
Lott's original position was A. Then in 2003 he switched to B. Then in 2004 he switched to C. The panel went for A. Lott goes Haha! Vindicated! He could have written that no matter which one the panel went for.
Yes "major" and "problems" accur several times in Plassman and Whitley. I looked at each of them to see if they were saying that there were major problems in the regressions that the panel reported. As far as I can tell, they weren't.
The point about the hybrid model is that A&D concluded that it was not correct. Lott is offering reasons why the hybrid model is incorrect to make it look like A&D were arguing in favour of it and hence were wrong.
On RESET tests Horowitz says that searching for a model that satisifies the tests does not solve the problem. Lott says that he has solved the problem by searching for a modle that satisifies the tests.
On the no-control problem, the results Lott refers to were done on the old data set that only went to 1992 and do not contradict results obained from the data that goes to 2000.
Lott wanted to use the question session to argue that the panel was wrong. That wasn't what the question session was for. It was to help people learn what the findings of the panel were.
TDPerk
Member
In this thread
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=114825&highlight=agricola
In this post:
And you reitereate your claim in a further post on the thread, as below:
Mr. Brett Osborn is not no one. He exists. Here is a piece which states the circumstances of his case.
With what further sophist arguments will you explain away your, ahem, misstatement?
If you have any countervailing evidence, you are welcome to present it. As it is, the best evidence is that Brett Osborn is doing prison time because he killed a man in defense of himself, his friends and loved ones--in his home--when he was confronted with a deranged intruder. There could scarcely be a more clear case of self defense, why did this this get so far as him doing any time?
Because as a pratical matter, the English do not have right do defend themselves. They are expected by their government do to nothing to hinder criminals outside of calling the police and with stiff upper lips laying down for the miscreant do as they wish.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=114825&highlight=agricola
In this post:
And you reitereate your claim in a further post on the thread, as below:
Mr. Brett Osborn is not no one. He exists. Here is a piece which states the circumstances of his case.
With what further sophist arguments will you explain away your, ahem, misstatement?
If you have any countervailing evidence, you are welcome to present it. As it is, the best evidence is that Brett Osborn is doing prison time because he killed a man in defense of himself, his friends and loved ones--in his home--when he was confronted with a deranged intruder. There could scarcely be a more clear case of self defense, why did this this get so far as him doing any time?
Because as a pratical matter, the English do not have right do defend themselves. They are expected by their government do to nothing to hinder criminals outside of calling the police and with stiff upper lips laying down for the miscreant do as they wish.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
agricola
Member
TDPerk,
I must hand it to you, even for the usual suspects that is a breathtakingly ignorant statement, that ignores both what I said in that quote you found as well as the last post on this thread. It even ignores the link that you posted as evidence.
Brett Osborn was not convicted for defending himself, he was convicted because he accepted that he was guilty. We dont know what the evidence was against him because it was never exposed to public scrutiny at trial - and what we do know is that he pled guilty because (to him) he thought what he did was illegal - as that link of yours states.. If Osborn (as that article states) was wrongly advised by his solicitors, then let him appeal and sue them - as, from that article he would seem to have a very strong case.
But that is probably wasted on you - as you will no doubt retreat into some other blather.
I must hand it to you, even for the usual suspects that is a breathtakingly ignorant statement, that ignores both what I said in that quote you found as well as the last post on this thread. It even ignores the link that you posted as evidence.
Brett Osborn was not convicted for defending himself, he was convicted because he accepted that he was guilty. We dont know what the evidence was against him because it was never exposed to public scrutiny at trial - and what we do know is that he pled guilty because (to him) he thought what he did was illegal - as that link of yours states.. If Osborn (as that article states) was wrongly advised by his solicitors, then let him appeal and sue them - as, from that article he would seem to have a very strong case.
But that is probably wasted on you - as you will no doubt retreat into some other blather.
- Status
