"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message

<someone462000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9af9f5c5.0407220501.3f330a5b@posting.google.com...

"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message

news:<9QaLc.108106$WX.43514@attbi_s51>...

Exactly. If the 2003 studies had been available when Edwards was

practicing

law, the other side would also have known about them and used them

against

him. Duh.

So, for Edwards, physicians were guilty until proven innocent and

okay?

Are you trying to make sense? Because that's a really dumb statement.

give another example, before DNA testing was known, a lot of people were
convicted of crimes based on the best possible CURRENT knowledge. They
weren't "guilty until proven innocent"; they were found guilty based on

sincere appraisal of what was known at the time. It's not "okay", but -
like so many other things - it's the best we can do.

I know that. But in similar circumstances, a criminal would receive
the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, I know, the standard for weighing
evidence is different in civil matters.

And it's quite natural to
find someone to blame when something goes wrong. But there has to
come a time when we admit our ignorance and give the benefit of the
doubt.

Sometimes that will result in the guilty getting away with
"murder" as it were. That's what I meant. Campaign for studies on
the use of forceps or do something else positive with what's gone
wrong when we can't be sure.

What *is* wrong is refusing to use the latest, CURRENT knowledge to look
again at people who have been convicted, perhaps most urgently those on
death row. Your buddy George Bush doesn't want to do that.

But they were convicted based on the best possible CURRENT knowledge.
It was a sincere appraisal of what was known at the time. It was the
best we could do.

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote
in message news:<4faue09bqbua8pficcalo14m3eq2nmq28g@4ax.com>...

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote
in message news:<2thte09v1auun34ii95iqns2n87pabpjmv@4ax.com>...

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote
in message news:<3bfre0h3nhpo69tcljr68ib1b34iih76aa@4ax.com>...

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:

Papa Jack cited:
On July 7, 2004, Ann Coulter's column was titled "In
Desperate Move, Kerry Adopts Puppy." Go to:

http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/070704p.htm
__________________________________________________________________________

Excerpts:

"...Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he
claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the
doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.

"As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four
times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But
curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies
born with cerebral palsy....
[...]

"...In addition, the "little guys" Edwards claims to represent
are having a lot more trouble finding doctors to deliver their
babies these days as obstetricians leave the practice rather
than pay malpractice insurance in excess of $100,000 a year.

"In one of Edwards' silver-tongued arguments to the jury on
behalf of a girl born with cerebral palsy, he claimed he was
channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was
speaking to the jurors through him:

"'She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a
little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm
having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'
[...]

"'She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right
now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel
her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking
to you."
[...]

"Is Edwards able to channel any children right before an
abortionist's fork is plunged into their tiny skulls? Why
can't he hear those babies saying, 'Let me live! Stop
spraying this saline solution all over me!' Edwards must
experience interference in channeling the voices of babies
about to be aborted. Their liberal mothers' hands seem to
muffle those voices.

"Despite the now-disproved junk science theory about C-sec-
tions preventing cerebral palsy that Edwards peddled in the
channeling case, the jury awarded Edwards' client a record-
breaking $6.5 million. This is the essence of the modern
Democratic Party, polished to perfection by Bill Clinton:
They are willing to insult the intelligence of 49 percent
of the people if they think they can fool 51 percent of the
people.
[...]

__________________________________________________________________________

Papa Jack commented:
Trial lawyers are to the legal profession as abortionist are
to the medical profession.

But, Ann Coulter IS right, Edwards is like a very cute puppy.
And, he DOES have better hair than Chaney.

=============================================================================

Adam H. wrote:
Ah, yes, more of Coulter's deceptive *****,...

=============================================================================

Papa Jack laughed:
Do you realize Ann Coulter "loves" radical liberals like
you, Adam? Folks just like you have made her rich and
famous. By writing the facts about your lop-sided views
of the world and society, she makes people like me keep
buying her books and reading her columns. Really, she's
one of my favorites for that very reason.

Plus, she's talented at making you liberals so angry you
sputter -- and, I think that's funny.

=============================================================================

Adam H. wrote:
Think what you like, PJ, but I notice that you can't refute
the facts - that Coulter claims that Edwards was being
deceptive based on science that Edwards COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN.

=============================================================================
Papa Jack explains:
You keep repeating this drivel as though you actually had
a real point to make. Think about it, please.

When Edwards used information to convince a jury they
should punish a physician by taking millions of dollars
and giving it to the patients, that information should
be KNOWN SCIENCE -- not voodoo magic like Edwards sold
the jury in the cases in question. He has a responsi-
bility to present the truth.

PJ, you are the one who must prove that he was deliberately NOT
presenting the truth as it was known at the time. You cannot use
Coulter's reasoning, since she is using facts that were NOT KNOWN at
the time. He may have been wrong, but I have yet to see you
demonstrate that he should have KNOWN that he was wrong.

I doubt the juries just give the decisions to Edwards'
clients because he had "nice hair." So, let's assume
he presented what the juries thought were scientific
medical "facts" to show that the physicians FAILED to
give proper treatment and immediately performed Caesarean
sections. Remember, he had to be "good enough" to overcome
the opposing arguments by the attorneys for the physicians.

Or perhaps the opposing arguments weren't particularly scientific, PJ.
Again you are drawing conclusions not in evidence. Your willingness to
simply take for granted that Edwards was deliberately lying reveals
your essential agenda - not one of truth, but only 'slinging pig
dirt', as you love to accuse others of doing.

Your contention that "Edwards COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN" is
inane and illogical. He had access to all sorts of expert
advice and he was the lead attorney in multi-million dollar
cases which changed the way medical treatment is provided.
HE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO KNOW -- or to make it clear to the
juries that he was simply speculating.

PJ, the FACT remains that the scientific facts used by Coulter to
rebut Edwards claims were not known until AFTER the trials. Your
insistence on demanding that he be clairvoyant is ridiculous. If you
want to claim that he was lying, then I suggest that you show some
evidence. I also suggest that your blind support of Coulter only
serves to point out your intellectual shortcomings.

=============================================================================

Adam H. wrote:
...concealing the fact that Edwards did not act against
scientific knowledge or research extant at the TIME OF
THE TRIAL. Was Edwards supposed to see into the future
to find out this stuff?

=============================================================================

Adam H. wrote:
Well?

=============================================================================
Papa Jack shook his head in disgust:
Knock it off, Adam, or the whole world will realize how
totally stupid you are being in this instance.

Ah, yes. Suddenly *I'm* being 'stupid' when I point out that
castigating Edwards over facts he could not have even known is in
itself of no value. Is there something about the errancy of that
action that you have trouble comprehending?

Tell me, what will your *next* so- compelling argument be? Will it be
another asinine remark about menstruation?

Edwards filed suits based on his "theory" that doctors
should rapidly diagnose this problem and immediately
perform the Caesarean sections. The lawsuits would
not have been filed if Edwards didn't propose this
"theory." Now, you want to excuse his fraud by saying
he couldn't have known?????????

Still waiting for you to prove the 'fraud', PJ. Perhaps the defense
should have acted a little more expeditiously to point out the flaws
in Edwards argument at the time. If they couldn't prove fraud I
suggest that accusing him of it is simply sour grapes on your and
Coulter's part.

=============================================================================

Papa Jack commented:
She didn't conceal anything, Adam. What she did was to
describe how Edwards USED "junk science" to convince juries
babies with cerebral palsy would have been spared the
affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed
Caesarean sections.

She quotes Edwards as telling the jury:

"She speaks to you through me and I have to tell
you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this
-- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's
inside me, and she's talking to you."

That's the words of a charlatan, Adam. Hardly someone
we'd want as our President.

=============================================================================

Adam H. wrote:
And yet you *still* cannot address the fact that Coulter
is using findings not yet known against Edwards - a decep-
tion....

=============================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
The only deception is your childish claims for this
illogical point. It does not make sense, Adam.

Yes, it does. Coulter is using facts that Edwards could not have known
against his past actions. That's sleazy, at best. Your support of her
is of exactly the same quality.

=============================================================================

Adam H. wrote:
...As for Edwards' statement - it's rhetoric. He didn't
claim that as science.

=============================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I don't know what he did. It sounds like a snakeoil
salesman on the back of his wagon to me. This is the
way this man got to be a very wealthy person -- which
is his only real experience. He hasn't even finished
one term as a senator -- and, it's widely believed he
would have had trouble getting reelected as a senator.

Irrelevant. Now, you made some claims of fraud, so I look forward to
your evidence. If you don't have any don't expect a response.

---
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god;
because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson

Papa Jack laughed:
Do you realize Ann Coulter "loves" radical liberals like
you, Adam? Folks just like you have made her rich and
famous. By writing the facts about your lop-sided views
of the world and society, she makes people like me keep
buying her books and reading her columns. Really, she's
one of my favorites for that very reason.

Plus, she's talented at making you liberals so angry you
sputter -- and, I think that's funny.