"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 08:18:03 -0800, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"TDKozan" wrote in message
...
Crap, if you're going to steal someone else's work and present it as
your own, at least steal from someone who has a passing familiarity
with the material they're trying to fob off as fact.

Number one, I didn't "steal someone else's work." Accounts of the trial
and
surrounding events are widely available, and are the source for the
alleged
facts that were developed at trial. Number two, if you have a problem
with
the trial record, try to confine yourself to that, instead of engaging in
smears of those who describe it. Number three, your amateur kitchen lab
experiments notwithstanding, I'm sure the trier of fact had plenty of
opportunity to hear from actual qualified experts on both sides, plus
rebuttals and arguments, and they were able to draw their own
conclusions.
In fact, if a juror had played kitchen scientist, it would be juror
misconduct leading to a mistrial. I'm sure McDonald's did all they could
to
disprove Liebeck's experts, but apparently could not do so.

Anyone with ANY familiarity with the American legal system knows it's not
a
matter of disproving the experts. It's a matter of swaying the jury
through ANY
means possible. Whatever goes(within the rules of the game and the judge
will
allow).

The "rules of the game" are chiefly aimed at excluding things intended to
sway the jury more than they are intended to prove some fact or element of
the case. Such things will lead to a prompt objection by opposing counsel
on grounds such as that their prejudicial effect outweighs their probative
value, argues facts not established by credible evidence, or many other
bases. It really isn't a game at all, it is serious business, and judges
and litigators aren't stupid, and, believe it or not, juries usually aren't
either.

Jeff