The Professor Who Battled Toyota And Survived

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 04:20:04 -0500, tnom wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 23:15:02 -0600, Hachiroku ???? > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 16:36:23 -0500, tnom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Flat out: There was, and is, absolutely nothing wrong with Toyota's
>>>>electronic throttle.
>>>
>>> Anybody that can make that statement shows an obvious bias and can't be
>>> trusted to make judgments.
>>>
>>> If you were a juror you would be disqualified. Flat out.
>>
>>
>>Except NASA and the government concur.
>
> You mean the government that we trust? And the same NASA that occasionally
> creates fireworks in the sky?


I think this is probably the one place that the old adage "It ain't rocket
science" has met it's best use.

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:03:27 -0600, hls wrote:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 23:15:02 -0600, Hachiroku ???? >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 16:36:23 -0500, tnom wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Flat out: There was, and is, absolutely nothing wrong with Toyota's
>>>>>electronic throttle.
>>>>
>>>> Anybody that can make that statement shows an obvious bias and can't
>>>> be trusted to make judgments.
>>>>
>>>> If you were a juror you would be disqualified. Flat out.
>>>
>>>
>>>Except NASA and the government concur.
>>
>> You mean the government that we trust? And the same NASA that
>> occasionally creates fireworks in the sky?
>>
>>
> And I suppose this Professor Woebegone Numbnuts is more dependable than
> NASA and the NTSB?
>
> You so badly want Toyota to be at fault??


Does kinda sound that way, doesn't it.

It seems to be the same kind of envy against the 'biggest' that wants to
tax those evil rich people into oblivion.


And does anyone remember what Ray LaHood said when all this news first
broke? I'll paraphrase: "We're going to tack Toyota to the wall!"

I wonder if he had ketchup on his crow yesterday?

"Clive" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, hls
> > writes
>>That is not what cleared O.J. A panel of prejudiced jurors saw him as
>>innocent although he dripped with Nicole's blood.
> What got O.J. Simpson off, was a smart lawyer who when presented with
> solid DNA evidence got some "Expert" to say that DNA kept for more than 48
> hours unchilled might well disintegrate causing errors, Which put doubt
> into the minds of the jurors.
> --
> Clive

That bunch of jurors, I believe, were prejudiced before the trial started.
Johnny Cochran did, however, make a lot of assertions that made them
doubt the evidence ("If the glove doesnt fit, you got to acquit") The
glove actually did fit.

I believe that there was plenty of proof that O.J. did it.

hls wrote:
>
> "Clive" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, hls
> > > writes
> >>That is not what cleared O.J. A panel of prejudiced jurors saw him as
> >>innocent although he dripped with Nicole's blood.
> > What got O.J. Simpson off, was a smart lawyer who when presented with
> > solid DNA evidence got some "Expert" to say that DNA kept for more than 48
> > hours unchilled might well disintegrate causing errors, Which put doubt
> > into the minds of the jurors.
> > --
> > Clive
>
> That bunch of jurors, I believe, were prejudiced before the trial started.
> Johnny Cochran did, however, make a lot of assertions that made them
> doubt the evidence ("If the glove doesnt fit, you got to acquit") The
> glove actually did fit.

The jury reached the conclusion that the glove did not fit. The glove
was found in the driveway. It is obvious that the glove got there either
because OJ dropped it or because it was evidence planted by the police.
The acquittal was because some jurors felt there wasn't enough evidence
to tell which version of the story was true. That is called reasonable
doubt.


>
> I believe that there was plenty of proof that O.J. did it.

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
news
>
>
> hls wrote:
>>
>> "Clive" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In message >, hls
>> > > writes
>> >>That is not what cleared O.J. A panel of prejudiced jurors saw him as
>> >>innocent although he dripped with Nicole's blood.
>> > What got O.J. Simpson off, was a smart lawyer who when presented with
>> > solid DNA evidence got some "Expert" to say that DNA kept for more than
>> > 48
>> > hours unchilled might well disintegrate causing errors, Which put doubt
>> > into the minds of the jurors.
>> > --
>> > Clive
>>
>> That bunch of jurors, I believe, were prejudiced before the trial
>> started.
>> Johnny Cochran did, however, make a lot of assertions that made them
>> doubt the evidence ("If the glove doesnt fit, you got to acquit") The
>> glove actually did fit.
>
> The jury reached the conclusion that the glove did not fit. The glove
> was found in the driveway. It is obvious that the glove got there either
> because OJ dropped it or because it was evidence planted by the police.
> The acquittal was because some jurors felt there wasn't enough evidence
> to tell which version of the story was true. That is called reasonable
> doubt.
>

It is all in the perception. I followed this trial closely. I dont believe
there was reasonable doubt, either now nor then.

In message >, hls
> writes
>It is all in the perception. I followed this trial closely. I dont believe
>there was reasonable doubt, either now nor then.
I followed it closely as well and I thought he was guilty. However if
I lived in America and the state that I was in had the death penalty, I
would not have been able to find him guilty. It's a case of once
you've murdered someone, if better evidence comes to the fore, you can't
bring them back to life.
--
Clive

"Clive" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, hls
> > writes
>>It is all in the perception. I followed this trial closely. I dont
>>believe
>>there was reasonable doubt, either now nor then.
> I followed it closely as well and I thought he was guilty. However if I
> lived in America and the state that I was in had the death penalty, I
> would not have been able to find him guilty. It's a case of once you've
> murdered someone, if better evidence comes to the fore, you can't bring
> them back to life.
> --
> Clive

The death penalty is not given very often here, and is less often exercised.

I wouldnt want any innocent person to be given the death penalty. And, in
fact, here in Texas we find it is much more expensive to enforce the death
penalty than to give the person life without parole. Only in the last few
years has LWOP be available to the judicial system here, IIUC.

Some people should not be allowed to live in contact with the normal
population.

hls wrote:
>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
> news
>>
>>
>> hls wrote:
>>>
>>> "Clive" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In message >, hls
>>> > > writes
>>> >>That is not what cleared O.J. A panel of prejudiced jurors saw him as
>>> >>innocent although he dripped with Nicole's blood.
>>> > What got O.J. Simpson off, was a smart lawyer who when presented with
>>> > solid DNA evidence got some "Expert" to say that DNA kept for more
>>> than > 48
>>> > hours unchilled might well disintegrate causing errors, Which put
>>> doubt
>>> > into the minds of the jurors.
>>> > --
>>> > Clive
>>>
>>> That bunch of jurors, I believe, were prejudiced before the trial
>>> started.
>>> Johnny Cochran did, however, make a lot of assertions that made them
>>> doubt the evidence ("If the glove doesnt fit, you got to acquit") The
>>> glove actually did fit.
>>
>> The jury reached the conclusion that the glove did not fit. The glove
>> was found in the driveway. It is obvious that the glove got there either
>> because OJ dropped it or because it was evidence planted by the police.
>> The acquittal was because some jurors felt there wasn't enough evidence
>> to tell which version of the story was true. That is called reasonable
>> doubt.
>>
>
> It is all in the perception. I followed this trial closely. I dont
> believe
> there was reasonable doubt, either now nor then.

It looks highly likely that he did do it. The jury properly
acquitted as evidence had passed through a perjurer, Furman.

As my ex the attorney says, 'We have a legal system not a
justice system'.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"AMuzi" > wrote in message
...
> hls wrote:
>>
>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
>> news
>>>
>>>
>>> hls wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Clive" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > In message >, hls
>>>> > > writes
>>>> >>That is not what cleared O.J. A panel of prejudiced jurors saw him
>>>> >>as
>>>> >>innocent although he dripped with Nicole's blood.
>>>> > What got O.J. Simpson off, was a smart lawyer who when presented with
>>>> > solid DNA evidence got some "Expert" to say that DNA kept for more
>>>> than > 48
>>>> > hours unchilled might well disintegrate causing errors, Which put
>>>> doubt
>>>> > into the minds of the jurors.
>>>> > --
>>>> > Clive
>>>>
>>>> That bunch of jurors, I believe, were prejudiced before the trial
>>>> started.
>>>> Johnny Cochran did, however, make a lot of assertions that made them
>>>> doubt the evidence ("If the glove doesnt fit, you got to acquit") The
>>>> glove actually did fit.
>>>
>>> The jury reached the conclusion that the glove did not fit. The glove
>>> was found in the driveway. It is obvious that the glove got there either
>>> because OJ dropped it or because it was evidence planted by the police.
>>> The acquittal was because some jurors felt there wasn't enough evidence
>>> to tell which version of the story was true. That is called reasonable
>>> doubt.
>>>
>>
>> It is all in the perception. I followed this trial closely. I dont
>> believe
>> there was reasonable doubt, either now nor then.
>
> It looks highly likely that he did do it. The jury properly acquitted as
> evidence had passed through a perjurer, Furman.
>
> As my ex the attorney says, 'We have a legal system not a justice system'.
>

I would have to refresh myself, but that Furman was a perjurer
was also nebulous. Depending upon his alleged perjury, though,
need not influence the other evidence in the case, which was
substantial.