What Are My Chances of Winning a Lawsuit in This Case

[Taxing Matters]

But I do find it a bit lofty to think that an accomplished surgeon who has much more experience in personal injury trials than you does not understand what he sees happen right in front of him.

He does not have more experience in trying personal injury cases than I do. He doesn't try cases at all. He is an accomplished doctor and he's an experienced expert witness. He knows far more about medicine and has far more experience in testifying as an expert witness than I do. So I'll certainly give weight to the things he says about those things, But while he has testified a number of times in cases, he likely has not seen much of the rest that goes into litigation. Litigation is far more than just what he sees in his time on the witness stand. That's what you are overlooking here. Nevertheless, all he told you was that he thought the system was screwed up. He apparently didn't explain to you why he felt that way. There could be many reasons. I mentioned just one of them. Without knowing why he thinks it's screwed up I cannot comment on whether I think he's right. You're certainly smart enough to understand that.

I will end with one thought: Just because a person can win a debate, a trial or explain somethings away, does not make that person right.

I agree with that, for the most part anyway.

To me it says more about the loser than the subject matter. Just as the OJ trial said more about the jury than it did about the lawyers or evidence.

I disagree with you on the OJ trial. I watched that trial and my view is that the prosecutors screwed it up and the defense attorneys, on the whole, did a good job exploiting the weaknesses of the prosecution's case. The prosecution had to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They fell short of that. Consider, for example, the problem with one of the key police witnesses for the prosecution, Mark Furman, whose credibility in the case was undermined when the defense played tapes that contradicted testimony he gave in the case regarding his use of racial slurs in the past. This also opened the door for Johnnie Cochran to argue to the jury that Furman was a "a lying, perjuring, genocidal racist". For his part, Furman claims that the police investigators (other than himself) and the prosecutors screwed up the case. And that's just one sample of the problems that the prosecution had in that case. The lawyers in the civil case learned from those mistakes and, along with the lower burden of proof, was able to get a large civil judgment against him.

[Harold99]

He does not have more experience in trying personal injury cases than I do. He doesn't try cases at all. He is an accomplished doctor and he's an experienced expert witness. He knows far more about medicine and has far more experience in testifying as an expert witness than I do. So I'll certainly give weight to the things he says about those things, But while he has testified a number of times in cases, he likely has not seen much of the rest that goes into litigation. Litigation is far more than just what he sees in his time on the witness stand. That's what you are overlooking here. Nevertheless, all he told you was that he thought the system was screwed up. He apparently didn't explain to you why he felt that way. There could be many reasons. I mentioned just one of them. Without knowing why he thinks it's screwed up I cannot comment on whether I think he's right. You're certainly smart enough to understand that.

I am smart enough see through your comments about Dr. Ross Nathan.

For starters, I never said he tried personal injury cases. You made that claim so you could say that I am wrong. Secondly, he does not only gain insight into our legal system from his time in the witness stand. Before he takes the stand he is counseled and coerced by the lawyers who are paying him that big money. IOW, he is told what to say and what to withhold. THAT gives him major insight into the corruptness and tact of a trial. Thirdly, you try to belittle him by saying "he knows more about medicine" when actually he knows more about and performs complex surgeries on the most complicated bone structure in the human body than likely anyone in CA. Finally, you claim his critique of our justice system is in question because he did not tell me exactly the specifics of what is wrong with it. How do you come up with a response like that? You sound like that defense lawyer in my case who would say just about anything...just to say something.

I gave you his name to verify him. If you clicked on him, you'd know that he is one of the most renown hand surgeons in CA. You could not challenge that so you went of to weak point number two and three...just like the typical lawyer does. Never conceding an inch from their original position. Constantly looking for ways to discredit even those that tower above them.

What I find interesting and sad is that anonymous people on social media can attempt to discredit those who are far more accomplished than they are. His credentials are right up front. Where are yours as an attorney? Why haven't you ever cited a single case you have tried? Don't get me wrong TM, I like you and enjoy our discussions, but I also like to watch you attempt to manipulate the discussion in lawyer fashion. After my trial I can now see how lawyers do what they do...and you fall in line with them. It is a craft that works on most people...just look at your following here. They think I am 'hardheaded' because I am not swayed by you as they are.

I disagree with you on the OJ trial. I watched that trial and my view is that the prosecutors screwed it up and the defense attorneys, on the whole, did a good job exploiting the weaknesses of the prosecution's case. The prosecution had to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They fell short of that. Consider, for example, the problem with one of the key police witnesses for the prosecution, Mark Furman, whose credibility in the case was undermined when the defense played tapes that contradicted testimony he gave in the case regarding his use of racial slurs in the past. This also opened the door for Johnnie Cochran to argue to the jury that Furman was a "a lying, perjuring, genocidal racist". For his part, Furman claims that the police investigators (other than himself) and the prosecutors screwed up the case. And that's just one sample of the problems that the prosecution had in that case. The lawyers in the civil case learned from those mistakes and, along with the lower burden of proof, was able to get a large civil judgment against him.

The prosecution did screw up in one regard. They allowed OJ to made a grandstand display of the glove not fitting. That was it. Other that that, they convinced well over 75% of White people that he was guilty. Was that screwing up? When over 75% of Blacks pretended that he was not guilty. THAT is a decision made on race, not trial evidence. How could you overlook stating that about the trial? As for Furman, whether he lied about ever saying the 'N' word in his life. Who cares if he lied? I'll tell you who, Cochran does, when he uses it to manipulate the jury into thinking he is an absolute piece of trash. The use of that word would work on Blacks but not so much on Whites. And I think he knew he had Blacks on the jury.

Also, the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a joke. A jury will do whatever they want to do. They do not care about that lofty term, especially when it involves a Black icon and it is payback time. If you haven't learned this with the BLM movement by now, you may never learn it.

Finally, if you watched the trial like I did, you'd know that Cochran told his ex-wife "give me one Black on the jury and I will hang the case." So TM, what does that mean he was doing up there? He was playing the jury along racial lines using buzz words like the 'N word.' OMG, how can you as a lawyer get the case of the century so wrong?

[Taxing Matters]

I am smart enough see through your comments about Dr. Ross Nathan.

For starters, I never said he tried personal injury cases.

No, but you implied that his time as a witness somehow makes him an expert in doing that. He is no expert in that.

Secondly, he does not only gain insight into our legal system from his time in the witness stand. Before he takes the stand he is counseled and coerced by the lawyers who are paying him that big money. IOW, he is told what to say and what to withhold. THAT gives him major insight into the corruptness and tact of a trial.

A good expert witness does not need to be counseled much on what to say on the stand. Lawyers pick experts whom they know will give them a favorable expert report and expert testimony. The expert certainly isn't coerced. If the expert isn't going to be favorable, then the lawyer tries to find another who will be favorable. In any event, again that's just part of being an expert witness. It does not give him insight or experience with everything else that goes into litigation. You are trying to make him out to be some great legal expert. I see nothing that suggests he has much legal expertise outside the narrow confines of being an expert witness.

Thirdly, you try to belittle him by saying "he knows more about medicine"...

I did not belittle him in the slightest. He is a doctor with far more medical knowledge that I have. How is that belittling? I think you just assume that I'm belittling him because I'm a lawyer and you suspect the worst in whatever I say.

Finally, you claim his critique of our justice system is in question because he did not tell me exactly the specifics of what is wrong with it. How do you come up with a response like that?

Again, you missed the mark. I didn't say his critique was "in question". Rather, what I said is that I can't tell if he has a valid criticism of the judicial system because I don't know WHY he thinks it's screwed up. Don't you think that it matters why he thinks it's messed up? Surely you're not so easily swayed to simply accept an opinion from someone on a matter outside his/her field of expertise without at least asking why he thinks the way he does, are you?

I gave you his name to verify him. If you clicked on him, you'd know that he is one of the most renown hand surgeons in CA. You could not challenge that so you went of to weak point number two and three...just like the typical lawyer does. Never conceding an inch from their original position. Constantly looking for ways to discredit even those that tower above them.

No, I'm not challenging his medical credentials at all nor trying to discredit him at all. But surely you understand that being a medical doctor at the top of his profession does not mean he has any knowledge or experience in the law. All I know of his legal experience is that he's been an expert witness. But that's a very small slice of everything that goes into litigation. You are trying to equate his medical expertise with legal expertise and that's simply illogical.

He may have some good reason for believing the system is messed up. But without knowing that reason, how can I possibly comment on it?

They think I am 'hardheaded' because I am not swayed by you as they are.

You are hard headed because it appears to me that once you form an opinion on something you won't change it even when presented with facts that are contrary to that opinion.

Finally, if you watched the trial like I did, you'd know that Cochran told his ex-wife "give me one Black on the jury and I will hang the case." So TM, what does that mean he was doing up there? He was playing the jury along racial lines using buzz words like the 'N word.' OMG, how can you as a lawyer get the case of the century so wrong?

Of course race played a significant factor in that case — both for white and black people alike. White people were more predisposed to think him guilty because he's black. Black people were more likely to think him innocent because their experience is that the justice system railroads Black persons. That the prosecution didn't seem to understand that they needed to deal with the racial issues presented by Furman's alleged racist past was one of the significant problems in their case. Lawyers need to adapt their case at trial to the jury they get. The prosecution didn't do a good job of it; the defense did. And the defense won.

[Harold99]

No, but you implied that his time as a witness somehow makes him an expert in doing that. He is no expert in that.

A good expert witness does not need to be counseled much on what to say on the stand. Lawyers pick experts whom they know will give them a favorable expert report and expert testimony. The expert certainly isn't coerced. If the expert isn't going to be favorable, then the lawyer tries to find another who will be favorable. In any event, again that's just part of being an expert witness. It does not give him insight or experience with everything else that goes into litigation. You are trying to make him out to be some great legal expert. I see nothing that suggests he has much legal expertise outside the narrow confines of being an expert witness.

I did not belittle him in the slightest. He is a doctor with far more medical knowledge that I have. How is that belittling? I think you just assume that I'm belittling him because I'm a lawyer and you suspect the worst in whatever I say.

Again, you missed the mark. I didn't say his critique was "in question". Rather, what I said is that I can't tell if he has a valid criticism of the judicial system because I don't know WHY he thinks it's screwed up. Don't you think that it matters why he thinks it's messed up? Surely you're not so easily swayed to simply accept an opinion from someone on a matter outside his/her field of expertise without at least asking why he thinks the way he does, are you?

No, I'm not challenging his medical credentials at all nor trying to discredit him at all. But surely you understand that being a medical doctor at the top of his profession does not mean he has any knowledge or experience in the law. All I know of his legal experience is that he's been an expert witness. But that's a very small slice of everything that goes into litigation. You are trying to equate his medical expertise with legal expertise and that's simply illogical.

He may have some good reason for believing the system is messed up. But without knowing that reason, how can I possibly comment on it?

You are hard headed because it appears to me that once you form an opinion on something you won't change it even when presented with facts that are contrary to that opinion.

Of course race played a significant factor in that case — both for white and black people alike. White people were more predisposed to think him guilty because he's black. Black people were more likely to think him innocent because their experience is that the justice system railroads Black persons. That the prosecution didn't seem to understand that they needed to deal with the racial issues presented by Furman's alleged racist past was one of the significant problems in their case. Lawyers need to adapt their case at trial to the jury they get. The prosecution didn't do a good job of it; the defense did. And the defense won.

During my exposure to six attorneys in my trial, I learned that they are no more aware of what's going on in the world than anyone else. Often much less so, similar to engineers. They just possess a talent in manipulating and mischaracterizing an event far better than the average person. It is that talent that I hone in on now. The rest of what you wrote could be easily challenged.

The above statement shows that you are absolutely out of tune with the Black vs White situation that we are facing now. Without a more cultural awareness, you are unqualified to understand what took place in the minds of the jurors. And, I will leave you with a question: Why do lawyers exclude other lawyers from jury selection? Could it possibly be that mainly lawyers can see through the 'smoke' that other lawyers blow? Don't worry, I do not expect you to admit that either.

[Taxing Matters]

The above statement shows that you are absolutely out of tune with the Black vs White situation that we are facing now.

But I wasn't speaking of the race situation today. I was speaking of the race situation 25 years ago, which is when the OJ criminal trial took place. Though, sadly, this country hasn't improved on race relations all that much in that quarter century.

Without a more cultural awareness, you are unqualified to understand what took place in the minds of the jurors.

Since you know nothing of my cultural awareness you are utterly and totally unqualified to judge me. Making an assessment off just on two sentences is woefully inadequate. But I'm not surprised you jumped to that conclusion.

And, I will leave you with a question: Why do lawyers exclude other lawyers from jury selection? Could it possibly be that mainly lawyers can see through the 'smoke' that other lawyers blow? Don't worry, I do not expect you to admit that either.

It is certainly not the case that lawyers are always excluded from juries. If that were the situation, I'd not have ended up on several juries. Of course it does sometimes happen that lawyers are excluded from juries, and the reasons vary. For example, lawyers are sometimes excluded for the same sorts of reasons any other juror is excluded, e.g. potential biases, etc. And, of course, sometimes a lawyer picking a jury will fear that a lawyer on the jury will have too much sway over the other jury members, a concern particularly for the lawyer with the weaker case.

[Harold99]

Yes, you can be judged on one sentence just like is done at trial and here every day.

White people were more predisposed to think him guilty because he's black.

Do you really think White people like to lock up Black people solely on the color of their skin? You must be kidding. There was a little thing called evidence that superseded the discrediting of Mark Furman using the 'N' word early in his life. Then there was that thing called DNA. The blood in his car, the shoe prints, the bloody glove on his property, the bangs on the wall, etc. Everything pointed to that POS and we were right.

The case was textbook lawyering BS just like my case. In my case if the defense attorney could show that I was inattentive, then it overshadowed all the hard evidence that that road crew broke about seven regs and laws that were established to properly warn me of an upcoming bikelane closure. In the OJ case, if Cochran could show that Furman used the 'N' word, he could also get them to throw out all the other hard evidence...which they did.

Lawyers must laugh inside when they can manipulate stupid, biased or racist juries.

Black people were more likely to think him innocent because their experience is that the justice system railroads Black persons.

So any Black person would not be vindicated by the Black community for that crime? So they would be willing to convict a White person for that crime but not a Black person? Not if they were being honest!

The justice system railroads any ethnicity they can convict. They just blame the wrongful conviction on the jury and the "evidence available at the time." I didn't get a break because I was White and my friend didn't get a break because he was Hispanic. The fact that Blacks do 45% of violent crime isn't because they are all railroaded at trial. Also, OJ was hardly Black on the inside...and if they had a video of him doing it, many Blacks would say "so what, it's payback time."

Sorry if I offense some that live by the media and political correctness.

[Taxing Matters]

Do you really think White people like to lock up Black people solely on the color of their skin? You must be kidding.

Again you are misstating what I said. I said that white people were more predisposed to think him guilty because he's black, not that they'd think him guilty solely because he's black. And no, I'm not kidding. I actually talked to people of various races at the time of the OJ trial and there were indeed a number of white people that I talked to who thought him likely to be guilty even before they heard the evidence. So the predisposition was there.

So any Black person would not be vindicated by the Black community for that crime? So they would be willing to convict a White person for that crime but not a Black person? Not if they were being honest!

Again, you are misstating what I said to suit your views. What I said was that Black people were more likely to think him innocent, not that they'd totally ignore the evidence. And again, that comes directly from my conversations with Black people at the time: a number of them that I talked to expressed suspicion at the police when he was arrested because so many of them had experienced racist treatment from cops and had been or knew people who they felt the justice system had railroaded.

The point here was that jury, before hearing the evidence, likely had some of those predispositions: white members may have initially been more inclined to think him guilty and Black members may have been more inclined to think him not guilty when the trial started. The lawyers in trying that case needed to be aware of that and deal with it to overcome those predispositions that were not favorable to them. That's a harder job for the prosecution since in a criminal case it must get a unanimous guilty verdict to win. The defense only needs to win over just one juror to at least get a mistrial. That's the way the system is set up: it's supposed to be difficult for the state to win without a really good case to help prevent convicting innocent people. Of course it's not perfect because we do see innocent people who get convicted anyway, but fewer of those convictions occur with this set up than would occur if we made it even easier for the state to win. One of the problems with the OJ case was that the prosecutors seemed blind to the racial element and did not effectively do anything to address it.

[Harold99]

Again you are misstating what I said. I said that white people were more predisposed to think him guilty because he's black, not that they'd think him guilty solely because he's black. And no, I'm not kidding. I actually talked to people of various races at the time of the OJ trial and there were indeed a number of white people that I talked to who thought him likely to be guilty even before they heard the evidence. So the predisposition was there.

When you say "evidence" do you mean witness testimony in court? Because if you do we did not have to wait that long to get initial information about OJ. We saw the photos of Nicoles face after OJ beat her up. We knew there were several domestic abuse calls on OJ. We saw the Bronco chase. We heard much of the evidence before the trial. Whites would not think OJ was guilty because he was Black. We knew he was hot tempered, thought he owned Nicole, the timeline made it possible, etc.

Again, you are misstating what I said to suit your views. What I said was that Black people were more likely to think him innocent, not that they'd totally ignore the evidence. And again, that comes directly from my conversations with Black people at the time: a number of them that I talked to expressed suspicion at the police when he was arrested because so many of them had experienced racist treatment from cops and had been or knew people who they felt the justice system had railroaded.

There is no doubt that Blacks and other ethnicities are railroaded by our justice system, but why didn't their opinions change after they saw all the evidence against him? I'll tell you why: Because it was payback time for all the innocent Black kids that have been wrongfully convicted. Evidence did not matter!

The point here was that jury, before hearing the evidence, likely had some of those predispositions: white members may have initially been more inclined to think him guilty and Black members may have been more inclined to think him not guilty when the trial started. The lawyers in trying that case needed to be aware of that and deal with it to overcome those predispositions that were not favorable to them. That's a harder job for the prosecution since in a criminal case it must get a unanimous guilty verdict to win. The defense only needs to win over just one juror to at least get a mistrial. That's the way the system is set up: it's supposed to be difficult for the state to win without a really good case to help prevent convicting innocent people. Of course it's not perfect because we do see innocent people who get convicted anyway, but fewer of those convictions occur with this set up than would occur if we made it even easier for the state to win. One of the problems with the OJ case was that the prosecutors seemed blind to the racial element and did not effectively do anything to address it.

The extensive evidence in the trial amounted to squat. Cochran told the jury a few lines like "if the glove don't fit..." and "Furman is a racist" and that is all that mattered as a excuse to find OJ not guilty. So kudos to Cochran for neutralizing all the evidence and manipulating a jury in his favor. Lawyers consider that a skill. I call it shameful. Problem is it is the exact same tact that lawyers use to convict innocent folks of all colors. It was also used on me. Shameful to us and honorable to a lawyer.

[Taxing Matters]

When you say "evidence" do you mean witness testimony in court? Because if you do we did not have to wait that long to get initial information about OJ. We saw the photos of Nicoles face after OJ beat her up. We knew there were several domestic abuse calls on OJ. We saw the Bronco chase. We heard much of the evidence before the trial. Whites would not think OJ was guilty because he was Black. We knew he was hot tempered, thought he owned Nicole, the timeline made it possible, etc.

But that was not nearly all the evidence there was, and of course some of what you mentioned was not admissible in the trial. A number of white people were predisposed to think him guilty before hearing much evidence at all that related to the actual murder. The Bronco chase has nothing to do with whether he killed his ex wife and her friend, after all, bizarre as that event was.

There is no doubt that Blacks and other ethnicities are railroaded by our justice system, but why didn't their opinions change after they saw all the evidence against him? I'll tell you why: Because it was payback time for all the innocent Black kids that have been wrongfully convicted. Evidence did not matter!

Well stated as a White person with the bias that Blacks will ignore evidence and simply protect their own. But I won't disparage the jury members as you do. Sure, they likely started, as I indicated, with a suspicion that OJ might be getting railroaded, but with sufficient evidence they may well have found him guilty. I watched the trial, and my view is that the prosecution failed to make the case that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And I'm not Black. The prosecution had blinders on and didn't see the weaknesses in its own case and failed to shore those up. The prosecution bears the burden of presenting a case in which the jury can say "I have no reasonable doubt that he did it". Well, the prosecution certainly presented some evidence pointing to OJ, but it wasn't as airtight as it should have been to overcome even my doubts,let alone that of a jury that would start out suspecting OJ might be getting railroaded.

The extensive evidence in the trial amounted to squat. Cochran told the jury a few lines like "if the glove don't" and "Furman is a racist" and that is all that mattered as a excuse to find OJ not guilty. So kudos to Cochran for manipulating a jury in his favor. Lawyers consider that a skill. I call it shameful.

He and his fellow attorneys did exactly what they were supposed to do: plant doubt in the minds of the jury to get their client acquitted. They had no obligation to concede anything to the state and had the ethical duty to vigorously defend their client. You're right, it is a skill, and they did it pretty well. I don't consider it shameful at all. That's exactly what they are charged with doing when representing a client in a criminal case. The state has to prove its case enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If it can't do that, it deserves to lose. But I've noticed before that you seem to have an odd sense of what you think is ethical for lawyers. You find things objectionable that most people would not even think twice about.

[Harold99]

But that was not nearly all the evidence there was, and of course some of what you mentioned was not admissible in the trial. A number of white people were predisposed to think him guilty before hearing much evidence at all that related to the actual murder. The Bronco chase has nothing to do with whether he killed his ex wife and her friend, after all, bizarre as that event was.

Well stated as a White person with the bias that Blacks will ignore evidence and simply protect their own. But I won't disparage the jury members as you do. Sure, they likely started, as I indicated, with a suspicion that OJ might be getting railroaded, but with sufficient evidence they may well have found him guilty. I watched the trial, and my view is that the prosecution failed to make the case that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And I'm not Black. The prosecution had blinders on and didn't see the weaknesses in its own case and failed to shore those up. The prosecution bears the burden of presenting a case in which the jury can say "I have no reasonable doubt that he did it". Well, the prosecution certainly presented some evidence pointing to OJ, but it wasn't as airtight as it should have been to overcome even my doubts,let alone that of a jury that would start out suspecting OJ might be getting railroaded.

He and his fellow attorneys did exactly what they were supposed to do: plant doubt in the minds of the jury to get their client acquitted. They had no obligation to concede anything to the state and had the ethical duty to vigorously defend their client. You're right, it is a skill, and they did it pretty well. I don't consider it shameful at all. That's exactly what they are charged with doing when representing a client in a criminal case. The state has to prove its case enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If it can't do that, it deserves to lose. But I've noticed before that you seem to have an odd sense of what you think is ethical for lawyers. You find things objectionable that most people would not even think twice about.

I will say it again. The evidence did not matter. If it did then why did 75% of Blacks think he was not guilty and 75% of Whites saw him guilty? It was payback time.

I will venture to say that I have far more life experience with Blacks and Hispanics than you do. Even today, I often spend whole days in living rooms of low income Blacks and Hispanics. I talk to them all openly and have been my whole life. I know why Hispanics have a grudges against Blacks. They tell me. So for you to say that Whites thought OJ was guilty because he was Black is preposterous. If a White icon like Joe Namath or Brad Pitt killed his Black wife, Whites would have his ass for it. Not so in reverse.