Seventh posting to Design Community BBS
(c) 2001, Mike Barkley

- - - - - - - -

> Posted by Larry Edlavich on November 29, 2001 at 12:11:54:
> In following this thread of discussion, anyone who has a
> belief that "Doors were locked" owes it to the world to
> support this with FACT,
> ( i.e. a sworn oath, or a deposition )
> I am an attorney and conjecture without facts are useless.
> Is some statement on a website necessarially Fact?
> Perhaps so, but again, more evidence should be provided.
> Until then, the jury is out.
> L. Edlavich, Esq.

Ah yes, Zero shows compassion, and the hyenas circle to protect the pack....

A sworn oath or a deposition does not make something a "fact", it merely adds a few more bells & whistles of credibility, following which you accept it if it supports your position or attack it if it refutes. Yes, in court pleadings and proceedings, assertions, documents, testimony, and physical exhibits may or may not be labeled as "fact" but that is legal convention rather than fundamental truth. What I have accumulated at are quotes from people who were there -- each is only as credible as the publication's editor, but the consistency of the quotes across the breadth of sources adds credibility. I find them sufficiently credible to warrant further investigation, you may not. If you are a lawyer pursuing claims from survivors, or victims' families, it is a trove of leads for your own investigators to use in substantiating your claims. But if you are a Port Authority lawyer or similar premises- or product liability defense lawyer, no amount of "fact" will sway you, which is why we have courts and juries.

Exceptions to the hearsay rule include a number of other markers of credibility. Does the account at of Frank Joseph Doyle have enough indicia to approach the level of a "dying declaration"? And how about the numerous accounts of Port Authority employees and officials -- might those be considered admissions or declarations against interest? (Now watch for public retractions of those stories....)

At least two PA employees with mobility problems were apparently abandoned by the PA only to be rescued by others, widely reported in print and video, Tina Hansen and Josephine Harris -- their stories relate to the broader question of barriers to evacuation that affect the disabled, or even the slightly mobility impaired as in the case of Ms. Harris. Their interviews have been so numerous and so consistent as to provide an uphill challenge to any advocate asserting that the PA met its duty to provide adequate evacuation opportunity to all, and indeed the PA might have some civil rights exposure in their cases. If the PA provides the mobile employee with the opportunity to escape death, must it also provide an opportunity with a comparable assurance of success to the less-mobile employee? Is there a nexus of any sort between ADA and 42 USC 1983 for instance? What other categories of discrimination victim might be relevant? Was there a higher percentage of non-WASP employees, tenants, and visitors who did not make it out? Tsk.

The jury may be out for now, but....

--Mike Barkley, 161 N. Sheridan Ave. #1, Manteca, CA 95336
(H) 209/823-4817 - MS is not Microsoft.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Return to Sentinel Home.

--Mike Barkley, 161 N. Sheridan Ave. #1, Manteca, CA 95336 (H) 209/823-4817