wrote in message
news
On 18 Aug 2008 09:13:09 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT), said:
Dave, do you really think the sailboat skipper had *ANY* culpability
in this accident?
I don't really know, and neither do you. What you've seen as extensive
coverage flogging one side's own version of the evidence. I've on many
occasions read one side's brief and decided it looks like a slam dunk in
that side's favor, only to reach a different conclusion after reading the
other side's. And I've done enough advocacy pieces myself to know that
even
the weakest case can be made to look good with a bit of creativity and
effort.
I think any reasonable person has to think it sounds like it was taken
directly from the script of any random B movie centered around a
corrupt redneck sherriff's department.
Your professional background could easily lead you astray. I think it
has in this case. Surely with your resources, you can come up with the
transcript of the trial and prove us all wrong?
It is very clear that Dave sides with the authorities every time. He is a
paid lackey for the advocacy of increased government power at any cost, by
any method.
All it takes is one look at the photographic evidence for ANY unbiased
person to conclude that the sailboat got run over from behind by a
criminally careless operator of a high speed motor boat.
It doesn't matter who was at the helm of the sailboat, it doesn't matter
whether the helmsman was drunk or sober, black or white, male or female,
sighted or blind, paralyzed or able-bodied. None of that would have made one
iota of difference.
Any sane man or woman can easily conclude the cause of the death and injury
aboard the sailboat was the direct result of the actions of the helmsman of
the motorboat. Nothing Dave can say changes these facts. The jury returned
an incorrect decision based primarily upon law enforcement and the courts
denying true due process by eliminating or manipulating certain vital
evidence. This is all clear and one does not have to, like Dave, resort to
the old saw that the jury got to see the faces of those who testified. Faces
lie. The O.J. Simpson jury is a prime example of what happens when a jury is
pathetically ignorant and biased, when the prosecution is crooked as hell
and when the defense is clearly inept. This case is just more of the same
and a prime example of how corrupt lawyers and courts have become of late.
Wilbur Hubbard