On 15 Aug 2008 11:13:03 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:06:26 -0700, Alan Gomes said:

And, as I said in the rest of what I wrote, it's hard to see how Perdock
should not receive at least *some* (I would say MOST) of the blame, even
if the guy had no running lights on at all and even if the helmsman was
completely passed out drunk.

I might well reach the same conclusion if I heard and saw the witnesses. But
I'm not going to reach any conclusion based solely on a one-sided piece of
advocacy flying in the face of what a court found.

OJ is innocent. The jury said so! Juries NEVER get it wrong.