Replies

Are you saying that Libby's counsel wrote it? They were the only ones who presented it to the court. I have a hard time believing his lawyers wrote a piece arguing their position in the WSJ.

I'm not really concerned with what they said and whether it is an accurate representation of the issue presented to the court - the most accurate representation is what was actually presented to the court. And what was actually presented to the court was based primarily on studies on eyewitness testimony, which is a bit different than the question of whether one will remember multiple conversations, or will continue to 'forget' them even after they are reminded of them by another source.

It is extremely odd to me how a group of folks who pillory the media will rely on media sources when it suits their purposes.

No, that's not what I said. I said they were lawyers who were involved in the expert evidence issue, as witnesses as I recall, but since I don't have an online subscription, I can't give you an exact quote. You don't have a transcript, so you don't know what was in the offer of proof, either. It will have to be sorted out by the appellate court.

If what you've read are the trial court orders and the parties briefs you'll likely believe the judge got all the calls right, because you have an incomplete record.

I have never "pilloried" the WSJ editorial page, on the contrary I have said I think it has replaced the NYT op/ed pages as the premier forum in the country, where the really interesting stuff is printed.