Dave wrote:
So the sail boat's insurance company doesn't like its chances of winning the
case in court, and wants to try it in the press instead. Why am I not
surprised?

Dave, do you really think the sailboat skipper had *ANY* culpability
in this accident?

A becalmed sailboat being run over by a powerboat going 40+ knots is
really not a case of remotely "equal blame" much less 100% the
sailboat's fault. The fact that the powerboater was a sheriff's deputy
who was not given a breathalyzer or blood test; and evidence of
ColRegs deemed inadmissable, and evidence on the sailboat's lights
being rejected by the DA (who is a freind of the deputy)... the whole
situation reeks.

DSK

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.

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?

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

On 18 Aug 2008 10:26:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:35:22 -0400, said:

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 ain't worth the effort.

cop out.

wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2008 10:26:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:35:22 -0400, said:

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 ain't worth the effort.

cop out.

He's clearly afraid to open his eyes and his mind as he just might decide he
should change it. . .

Wilbur Hubbard

On 18 Aug 2008 13:10:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:04:03 -0400, said:

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 ain't worth the effort.

cop out.

Hey, you wanna pay my outrageous rates for getting the case number, locating
a service company to go over to the court house, find the entire transcript
(if there is one) and photocopy it, and then reviewing it, just let me know
and I'll send you a retainer letter.

Sometimes people will spend a whole day that they could spend doing
something else, doing something for someone just to try and be
helpful. I guess you aren't one of those people.

wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug 2008 13:10:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:04:03 -0400, said:

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 ain't worth the effort.

cop out.

Hey, you wanna pay my outrageous rates for getting the case number,
locating
a service company to go over to the court house, find the entire
transcript
(if there is one) and photocopy it, and then reviewing it, just let me
know
and I'll send you a retainer letter.

Sometimes people will spend a whole day that they could spend doing
something else, doing something for someone just to try and be
helpful. I guess you aren't one of those people.



?? He's only asking for $5. LOL


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

dougking...@ said:
Dave, do you really think the sailboat skipper had *ANY* culpability
in this accident?

Dave wrote:
I don't really know, and neither do you.


False.

The problem can be analysed fairly easily:
What action could a becalmed sailboat skipper have taken to avoid
being run down by a powerboat going 40+ knots?
What action could a powerboat skipper going 40+ knots take to avoid a
becalmed sailboat?

If the jury was not instructed to consider the case along these lines
(and they almost certainly weren't, since they didn't even bring
ColRegs into it), then the jury could not possibly arrive at a fair
conclusion. This is a more important issue than whther the sailboats
lights were on (and the exclusion of testimony that they were looks
kinda suspicious), who had been drinking (and the lack of any testing
of the powerboat driver again looks suspicious), etc etc.

Even if the reportage of the incident & trial are all highly biased,
as you claim, the basic facts lead one to believe that this was a case
of the grossest kind of injustice. As a lawyer & officer of the court,
you should be outraged, not smugly self-satisfied. Unless you've been
a deputy sheriff yourself, and once got away with drunken manslaughter
due to cronyism, I really don't quite understand your attitude.

.... 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.

And excluding evidence, and instructing juries to ignore facts, etc
etc.
One of the problems we have in this country is that the courts are
getting further & further away from anybody's idea of 'fair.'

Regards- Doug King

On 19 Aug 2008 11:09:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:14:38 -0700 (PDT), said:

The problem can be analysed fairly easily:
What action could a becalmed sailboat skipper have taken to avoid
being run down by a powerboat going 40+ knots?
What action could a powerboat skipper going 40+ knots take to avoid a
becalmed sailboat?

Turn on his navigation lights? Assuming he's sober enough to see and hear
the other vessel, shine a light on his sail to make sure he's seen?

Even if the reportage of the incident & trial are all highly biased,
as you claim, the basic facts lead one to believe that this was a case
of the grossest kind of injustice. As a lawyer & officer of the court,
you should be outraged, not smugly self-satisfied. Unless you've been
a deputy sheriff yourself, and once got away with drunken manslaughter
due to cronyism, I really don't quite understand your attitude.

I'm not even particularly claiming that the reporting is biased, though I
can't help suspect that when 12 people reached a different conclusion. If
you had ever read a trial brief, you'd find my attitude easy to understand.
It's very easy to reach the wrong conclusion when you have only half of a
story.

Yes, and that was the jury's problem. The jury heard only what they
were allowed to hear. They may not have even been aware of how much of
the pertinent information was deliberately withheld from them. Then
again, who knows what went on during Jury selection. How many jurors
were in on the fix?