I think for me personally, I would need to see some photographs or some dated documents that support these types of claims. Not people's testimony or recollections.
And you are right, we may never get this type of proof.
But then again, we never thought we'd see a photo of the trooper helmet sculpt.
Who knows what could potentially be unearthed in the future.
.
This is about the concept of "best evidence."
You are asking for best
possible evidence: what we have to deal with is best
available evidence. When looking into litigation you search for the best possible evidence, and on a case as big as this the search would have been very thorough, to make your case. If there is anything better out there it is very well hidden.
When you look at the best available evidence, which is in the form of fragmentary documentary records and the testimony of witnesses, most of which is discussed at length in the judgment, certain things make sense and certain things don't.
The only thing in the judges findings which doesn't ring true is the attribution of the sculpt to Mr. Pemberton. On looking at the evidence, and subsequent analyses here and elsewhere I am convinced that the judge was in error there. As it wasn't a pertinent legal point it wasn't challenged.
What absolutely makes no sense is that AA could have unilaterally made the original tools from reference using his "sculpting skills."
If you are not satisfied based on having specific additional evidence which contradicts the available information that is one thing. But to reject the evidence just because it isn't perhaps as good as it might conceivably be is asinine.
I think in this particular situation, there is a conflict of interest regarding the one giving the testimony. Both from AA's standpoint as well as Brian's.
Both stand to benefit in one way or another depending on which testimony is taken as fact.
Now that does not automatically disqualify either of their testimonies, but rather gives pause while considering it.
I'm not saying only one of them is right and the other is wrong, but I think we should open to the possibility of other scenarios other than the ones presented.
Credit, especially for characters as iconic as the stormtrooper and vader, is a highly valuable thing. In terms of career prestige as well as potentially monetarily.
I don't see any significant conflict of interest.
I also don't see anyone apart from you questioning whether Brian Muir did everything he claims. The only question not completely settled is who sculpted the Stormtrooper helmet.
He could quite easily have claimed credit for himself if his motives were not in good faith, as Liz Moore is sadly not around to claim it herself. Instead he has gone to great lengths to ensure that she gets the posthumous credit he obviously feels she deserves.
What you are doing here is using an old lawyer's trick (whether intentionally or not) used when trying to raise doubt. Watch a Grisham movie and you'll more than likely see it, usually from the bad guys. They point out all the ways the opposing case is reasonable, then try to raise doubt without giving evidence. They point out all the ways the evidence isn't as good as it could have been, which raises the implication there is room for other, better evidence, which could turn the case on its head. They then ask us to ignore the actual evidence in front of us and construct doubt without good reason.
You try to introduce a conflict of interest without any evidence there is any, and to imply bad faith and financial motives again without evidence.
What you are basically saying is, "I can see your point and understand why you believe that" (subtext: look how reasonable I am being) "all I'm doing is offering is an alternative scenario," (subtext: if you want to be as reasonable as me you have to at least consider it) "I have no evidence it happened the way I said; but note that they have no evidence it didn't" (effect: you shift their burden from proving a positive (which with enough evidence is possible) to proving a negative (which is impossible; no matter how good the evidence is).
The sad thing is it all too often works, and this is why internet debate tends to go around and around and around and...
All you are doing is spreading unsubstantiated hypotheses which do nothing constructive to further the debate. In fact they usually have exactly the opposite effect: they derail it.
thumbsup:thumbsup
