The letter discusses a court case against Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, and three Italian scientists related to cold fusion. The court's verdict, which the authors plan to appeal, does not conclude that the scientists committed misconduct. The court acknowledges that the cells with electrodes of treated palladium in heavy water solutions produce an unexplainable amount of heat, but does not mention fraud or misconduct. The authors criticize the scientific community's response to the cold fusion research, which they argue is characterized by innuendo, defamation, and vituperation. They compare the court's decision to a hypothetical case in 1930s Germany where a Jewish group's libel case was dismissed due to prevailing antisemitism. The authors argue that the scientific community's failure to engage with the cold fusion research through experimentation or theory, and instead resorting to insults and the right of free press, is problematic. They plan to appeal the verdict and continue defending the right to free research and discovery. The authors also criticize the use of the term "relict" to describe the last representative of a lineage, suggesting "mohican" as a more poignant alternative. The letter is written by Emilio Del Giudice and Guiliano Preparata, both from Italy. The second letter discusses the g factor in intelligence testing, and the third letter proposes an alternative term for the last representative of a lineage.The letter discusses a court case against Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, and three Italian scientists related to cold fusion. The court's verdict, which the authors plan to appeal, does not conclude that the scientists committed misconduct. The court acknowledges that the cells with electrodes of treated palladium in heavy water solutions produce an unexplainable amount of heat, but does not mention fraud or misconduct. The authors criticize the scientific community's response to the cold fusion research, which they argue is characterized by innuendo, defamation, and vituperation. They compare the court's decision to a hypothetical case in 1930s Germany where a Jewish group's libel case was dismissed due to prevailing antisemitism. The authors argue that the scientific community's failure to engage with the cold fusion research through experimentation or theory, and instead resorting to insults and the right of free press, is problematic. They plan to appeal the verdict and continue defending the right to free research and discovery. The authors also criticize the use of the term "relict" to describe the last representative of a lineage, suggesting "mohican" as a more poignant alternative. The letter is written by Emilio Del Giudice and Guiliano Preparata, both from Italy. The second letter discusses the g factor in intelligence testing, and the third letter proposes an alternative term for the last representative of a lineage.