Ken, thanks as always for giving us such detailed information and insight. You have shed much light on this case -- light that we couldn't have gotten anywhere else. As we all know, while there are copious amounts of information out there, much of it is of questionable veracity. So your input has been very educational and enlightening.
IMHO nothing I have read so far changes that position.
I actually HAVE swayed at least some of my opinions on this case, based on new information that I learned from this thread. I'd believed certain things due to the information I had available to me at the time. Once I learned that certain facts were actually different from what I'd originally read, my opinion changed.
Strangely, I've recently been criticized for that, which I find baffling. I personally think people SHOULD be willing to change their minds based on new information! How many of us have encountered someone who states an opinion based on faulty information, yet when presented with the actual facts, they cling to their flawed opinion like a junkyard dog clamped on to a pantleg? That, to me, is just being foolishly stubborn. What point is there to even engage in a discussion about something if we're all going to choose a position, then stick to it in spite of anything new that we learn?
But, like you, I can say that my
overall perspective hasn't changed. I still largely agree with the jury's decision. I still feel that Dan should have won this case. The award amount - I don't know if it's too high. I'd definitely love to hear the jury's reasoning behind it! And I, like so many of us, will be eager to see if this is appealed, and what happens if it is.
Ken, I could not have said that better.
A couple of comments:
1. The attorney asked Ken the particular question during a deposition. That way he would know what Ken would say and could decide whether to ask it at trial. I’m guessing he didn’t ask it at trial.
I didn't catch in reading Ken's post that this was in a deposition. But even if I had, not being a lawyer, I'm not really clear on where a deposition fits into the whole trial process. Can anything said in a deposition be used later at trial?
2. I’m always a skeptic. However, I don’t have any problem with Dan suing or seeking a lot of money. I don’t have a problem with him drifting along and saying to himself: “If I get out of this, I’m going to sue them for everything they are worth.” And, doing so is not, IMHO inconsistent with him changing the industry.
I could not agree with you more on this - every word. And I can't help but think that MOST of us would think that, if we were in his fins...Monday-morning quarterbacking notwithstanding.
3. I would love to know Dan’s position here and now. But, realistically, its none of my business. Nor is it anyone else’s business. Much though I’d like to know his take, I respect his right to keep quiet. And, if he asked my opinion, I’d tell him to keep his mouth shut… especially until all appeals are over.
That's the point I've been trying to make. As much as we'd all love to hear what he has to say, I expect that his attorney would advise him to keep his mouth clamped shut. We can theorize all we want that there are things he could say that wouldn't *hurt* his case, but really, who knows what might be twisted around and used against him in an appeal? Surely the smartest course of action for him would be to remain silent. And he shouldn't be castigated for that.
I also feel that what he does with the money, should he ever actually end up with any, is none of our business.
