Whittemore Institute suing Mikovits for alleged theft of lab notebooks and data

[Enid]

Maybe - but all things Norway now. They have found a key. And of course all who pursue and treat.

 

[Ecoclimber]

Max Pfost Affidavits

On Monday evening, Mikovits' former employer, the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease in Reno, filed signed affidavits in district court in which a coworker states that she enlisted him to take the lab notebooks for her.

The affidavit from graduate student researcher Max Pfost states that he used her desk and office keys to take 12 to 20 lab notebooks, which he hid at his house in a large, multi-colored "Happy Birthday" gift bag before turning them over to Mikovits in mid-October.

"As I left for work at WPI that morning, Mikovits further requested that I keep her informed as to the whereabouts of WPI personnel so that Mikovits could avoid detection in Reno," Pfost wrote.

The affidavit also states that Mikovits had the two of them set up "a new separate email account for our secret communications about WPI" and that Mikovits told Pfost she was hiding on a boat "to avoid being served with papers from WPI.



Affidavits of Max Pfost

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-pfost-affidavit-1-20111122-pdf,0,3711476.htmlpage

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-pfost-affidavit-2-20111122-pdf,0,4628981.htmlpage

 

[Cort]

It seems to me, from what we currently know, that the arrest warrant was NOT issued as a result of Dr. M having left the state against instructions to stay in the state that were given to her on the basis of the civil lawsuit against her.

That in itself would NOT produce a "felony fugitive from justice" charge. So, Cort, I don't think you have it right. Some new charge is in progress that we have not seen yet.

Important to note: For one state to request another to apprehend and extradite a fugitive from justice, the person in question need NOT have been indicted on the underlying criminal charge yet. So whatever charge is underlying the fugitive from justice charge, it may not be in the public record yet. There IS a missing piece of information here.

Thanks UrbanTravels..

 

[Cort]

With respect Cort, I beg to differ. Logically speaking, unless there is evidence Mikovits has the material, she doesn't have it by law. A 'good chance', probably based solely on statements from WPI, indicates there is no evidence Mikovits has the material, other than WPI''s stated belief. The judge did not say there was evidence Mikovits had the material, just that she felt there was a good chance.

A legal conviction does not work on good chance. It works on absence of doubt. A 'good chance' may be enough to get Mikovits arrrested, to limit possible damage, in case she did have the material, but if it is not proven she had the material she will not be convicted. Your point b does not necessarily follow from point a. To say Mikovits was not acting honestly, even if you are repeating someone else (particularly an unnamed source), opens you to libel actions in a major way.

Given the comments by moderators on this site, I am surprised that such a statement is allowed to remain. A very risky strategy, if there is a real chance of a libel suit. And it appears there is, as Stuart Jones from Bad Science may soon discover if his hearing goes against him. I would not be surprised if his is just the first. It would not surprise me if other members of that forum (whose sanctioned comments against Mikovits appeared on this forum) find themselves in trouble. What you need to be most concerned about is if there is evidence that there was collusion between forum members to tarnish Mikovits good name. That will support an argument of intent and dramatically increase the seriousness of the case. In my opinion and in the opinion of many members of this forum there was. Particularly when the Bad Science mob were sanctioned and protected on this forum. That is all you need to press a libel suit.

Even those members of Bad Science who didn't openly denigrate Mikovits, but supported the push against her could be brought into such a case, if collusion was proven. And there were members who were quite subtle about their opposition to Mikovits, but open in their support for those who were outspoken. Particularly in the use of the likes such posts received. I note there was an obvious pattern to the use of the like button on the anti Mikovits posts which could possibly be tracked.

Irrespective, whether or not your views about Mikovits' culpability bear out, Cort, the last thing you could call your statement is objective. Particularly when in the past you have a history of being critical of Mikovits.

Think of it in this way....The WPI's materials have been sitting in their building for the last year and a half safely. The day after Dr. Mikovits is terminated they disappear. Either someone else just happened to take them at the very moment Dr. Mikovits was terminated or the termination played some role in their disappearance. Given that the first is unlikely I would guess the second is probably more likely to be true. This isn't about a conviction; this is about coming to a logical conclusion of what probably happened based on what we know of the facts. My guess was that given the circumstances Dr. Mikovits termination in all likelihood was probably associated with the documents disappearing.

No matter what you view about my past critiques of Dr. Mikovits, which I readily agree have been strong - I have had many misgivings about the ways things have gone - thats the scenario that makes sense to me.