On Dec 8, 11:04 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:45:56 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"



That's the difference between the Civil and Legal court system. OTOH
the Legal part seems to be heavily swayed in that direction as well.
At least they are supposed to be prove guilt, which is not necessary
in a civil action.

Those statements make no sense. There is no "legal court system" that is separate from the "civil system." In fact there is no "civil system". Within the "legal system" there are civil cases, which include the myriad of disputes between private parties, although it also includes disputes involving governments; and there are criminal actions. Perhaps you meant "criminal" instead of "legal."


Again you are dealing with juries. Going to trial means you can't
predict the results. That is one reason so many companies are moving
to binding arbitration; because they get frustrated at the inconstancy
of jury trials.

I've done, and do, both. Believe me, the arbitration process is at
least as "inconsistent" as the jury system. For example, did you know
that in arbitration, the arbitrator is generally not even required to
follow the law? As long as his decision is not patently fraudulent
(e.g., bribery), it will be upheld no matter how utterly wrong on the
facts and the law. An arbitrator is not even required to give a
rationale for his decision, All he is required to do is fule for one
party or the other without explanation, They often do write an
explanation, but what is in the opinion is not grounds for review.
Juries don't have to give an explanation either, but their decisions
are subject to review by a judge and appellate system, In fact, in
the McD verdict, the judge reduced the jury award. That would not
have been possible in an arbitration.


In the end it was far easier and much
cheaper to just give them a couple Billion dollars than to fight junk
science with true science.

That is patent nonsense. Socalled junk science exists on both sides,
as does true science.

The average juror is easily mislead by junk
science as the real thing. It only takes a convincing presentation by
a so called expert to sway the jury.

Yep, either way.

Its a jury of our peers and they can be idiots. Look at OJ or many
aviation related cases to see that.

You've named one case. And that was the crriminal case. A jury
nailed him in the case tried in the terrible "civil court system." So
are you now cricizing the "legal court system" (i.e., criminal case)
that you above held in such high regard?



I have never survived the selection process. Either I have too much
education, I'm in the wrong income group, my knowledge base includes
items pertaining to the case. If that weren't enough, my deep belief
in the concept that a person is responsible for their own actions
would do it. They can't ask about religious beliefs.

....or the attorneys and judge saw you for what you are- a man with
mind like a steel trap. Once it's closed, its very hard, or
impossible to open.