Climategate Inquiry Clearly Ignores Wrongdoing

Re:Climategate Inquiry Clearly Ignores Wrongdoing by jacoblyles on Thursday July 08, 2010 @12:56PM (#1497941)

Anthony Watts' comment :

"The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Climategate Inquiry Clearly Ignores Wrongdoing by mukyu on Thursday July 08, 2010 @02:40PM (#1498331)

Yes, in an adversarial system like the US legal system that would be farcical. However, this was not conducted in a US court room and there are are other systems such as an inquisitional style that more apt at determining truths than establishing blame.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Climategate Inquiry Clearly Ignores Wrongdoing by eli on Thursday July 08, 2010 @01:34PM (#1498073)

IANAL, but I didn't think there really was a plaintiff in criminal court. Isn't it e.g. "The United States Government" or "The State of New York" (not just whoever has beef with the defendant)?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Climategate Inquiry Clearly Ignores Wrongdoing by hugh3 on Thursday July 08, 2010 @02:22PM (#1498267)

You're right; perhaps it should say "with no prosecutors".

In other words, this inquiry had nobody there to aggressively put forth the case that the defendant was guilty.

[ Parent | on HN ]