We have just received a new independent expert report on the sonar anomaly. Some of it is pretty technical. As soon as I'm sure I understand it myself I'll write a new Niku VII update for the TIGHAR website and publish the report.
Struggling with this anomaly has gotten me thinking about the nature of evidence in an investigation like The Earhart Project and maybe in all investigations. Whenever our research brings us new information that appears to support our hypothesis we ask ourselves the same question - Is this a clue or just a coincidence?
There are people who take the position that nothing is a clue unless it is, in itself, absolute proof that the hypothesis is correct. Those are the people who say has TIGHAR has found not one shred of evidence that Earhart was ever on Nikumaroro.
So what is the nature of a clue and of evidence. Are they the same?
Evidence is anything that you are proffering that you think supports your hypothesis.
This evidence certainly would encompass any clue that you may have. The issue would be relevance and materiality, that is, it is relevant if it intended to establish the point for which it is offered and material if the point bears on the issue of the case.(Mueller, Evidence Under The Rules, 1993)
The Lambrecht article that contains his report of the aerial search could be admissible as both relevant and material. It is evidence that supports the assertion that Earhart was not on Gardner on July 9, 1937. The Pan American papers could be admissible as both relevant and material as it indicates radio transmissions from the vicinity of Gardner. From that you argue that Earhart was the only viable source of those transmissions.
Your claim is that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Earhart missed Howland and then flew down the line and found Gardner. All of those things you list as supporting this event is your evidence, viz, the radio call “on the line 157, 337.” Your argument is that this bit of evidence proves that AE was flying toward Gardner. It could be argued, as Gary LaPook does, that this evidence proves that AE was using the offset method to find Howland and not to fly to the Phoenix Islands, therefore, in this case, your evidence is not so strong.
It is my view that if you went into a court of law seeking a declaratory judgment that validates your hypothesis, you would not succeed. The most damaging evidence against you is the fact that the Navy searched the island and did not find the Electra nor Earhart and Noonan. You would lose on this point alone even though you have offered many reasons for the failure of the Navy aviators, not enough time looking, no flare pistol, helicopter flyover video and CAP SAR data.
The Betty Notebook evidence could be challenged and probably thrown out as hearsay. In deference to Betty, the notebook should not even be submitted.
I know this is not what you want to hear but it is just a very brief note as to what I see. I certainly am not the accomplished, learned, counselor at law that Gary is but I do have significant flying time, both military and commercial over water and, later in life, used my VA benefits for law school.
In regards to the Mellon case, the reason that I posted the complaint a few days ago is that once filed on PACER(Public Access to Court Electronic Records) it becomes public record along with the docket of the case and you are a public figure.
I am sure you have retained very good counsel, notwithstanding, an appropriate action at this point is a Rule 12b motion to dismiss.
