Harding’s lawyer, Thomas Walsh told the court: “The Crown’s expert witness Stephen Callaghan has stated quite clearly that leaving your air brakes on and relying on them was generalized in the industry prior to the tragedy and it was a way of functioning.”
The key phrase is “and relying on them.” This is key and critical because the rules state, “The air brake system must not be depended upon to prevent an undesired movement.” The key phrase here is “must not be depended upon.” Of course, depended upon and “relying on them” means the same thing. So the question becomes, relied upon or depended on to do what?
There are two ways of relying on the air brakes left on:
FIRST WAY: Rely on them for backup for a train that has enough handbrakes set to provide 100% of the securement needed. In this case, the air brakes are redundant brake securement that truly does function only as a backup to the possible failure of the handbrakes.So the air brakes are not being depended on to prevent an undesired movement; but they are being relied upon to be a backup securement in case the handbrakes fail, which is what Stephen Callaghan was referring to.
Does Canadian law provide against double-jeopardy as American law does? Here in the US if you’re tried and aquitted that’s the end of it, you can’t be tried over and over again until the state gets the result it wants.
If that’s not the case in Canada then this isn’t necessarily over yet.
Canada has no “Double Jeopardy” law. If a defendant has been found not guilty of a crime, the Crown may appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Should new evidence surface after a “not guilty” verdict, even years or decades later, the person found not guilty can and will be charged again and re-tried. One jury giving a “not guilty” verdict is not a lifetime pass. It simply means that at that time and place, the Crown was not able to prove their case. If the defendant is actually not guilty, all well and good, but if they are in fact guilty and sufficient evidence surfaces later, same guy back to court with same charges.
Thanks, Miningman! I for one appreciate the response! [:-^]
And to BaltACD… ‘Persecution’ may be the most appropriate response where no law concerning application of Double Jeopardy exists under the Canadian legal system. [wow]
Harding’s lawyer, Thomas Walsh told the court: “The Crown’s expert witness Stephen Callaghan has stated quite clearly that leaving your air brakes on and relying on them was generalized in the industry prior to the tragedy and it was a way of functioning.”
The key phrase is “and relying on them.” This is key and critical because the rules state, “The air brake system must not be depended upon to prevent an undesired movement.” The key phrase here is “must not be depended upon.” Of course, depended upon and “relying on them” means the same thing. So the question becomes, relied upon or depended on to do what?
There are two ways of relying on the air brakes left on:
FIRST WAY: Rely on them for backup for a train that has enough handbrakes set to provide 100% of the securement needed. In this case, the air brakes are redundant brake securement that truly does function only as a backup to the possible failure of the handbrakes.So the air brakes are not being depended on to prevent an undesired movement; but they are being relied upon to be a backup securement in case the handbrakes fail, which is what Stephen Callaghan was referrin
No, I don’t think there is anything I am suggesting that conflicts with the way the jury saw it. Maybe you should think about it a little more. There is most definitely semantics involved, but I am not introducing it. The semantics are in the way the expert witness Stephen Callaghan described the idea of relying on air brakes during securement in the pre-accident rules, and how Mr. Walsh interpreted that information. That is the best incidence of sematics that I have ever seen. It leads to the two opposing interpretations that I described in my first post. I will add a little clarfication soon.
I want to add some clarifying detail to my first post because the point I am making is that the jury may have believed that Mr. Harding did not break any rules in securing the train. I think it is important because it would be completely contrary to what we have been told since the TSB released their final report.
Regarding Mr. Walsh’s point in which he stated: “The Crown’s expert witness Stephen Callaghan has stated quite clearly that leaving your air brakes on and relying on them was generalized in the industry prior to the tragedy and it was a way of functioning.”
As I understand it, the reason Mr. Walsh made this point was to refer to earlier rules that were changed as a consequence of the Lac Megantic disaster. That is why Mr. Walsh includes the phrase, “prior to the tragedy” in his statement. Apparently, the court had stipulated that the previous rules could be used as a basis to judge Mr. Harding’s performance of the oil train securement.
I believe that what Mr. Walsh is saying is that Harding’s dependence on air brakes to provide a portion of the securement was accepted practice according to the rules before the rules were changed after the runaway. That has to be his point, because he had the role of defending Harding, and that point defends Harding.
If the court is allowed to judge Mr. Harding’s securement according to the older rules, and if Mr. Walsh’s point based on Mr. Callaghan’s statement is true; then Mr. Harding’s applic
Folks, a long time ago I gave up trying to second-guess juries and why they reach the decisions they do.
I always keep in mind I’M not in the courtroom and I don’t see and hear what the jury sees and hears. If the jury aquits in a case I or most people would assume would be “open and shut” the obvious conclusion is the defendant is in fact not guilty, or the prosecution failed to prove it’s case.
Sorry Dave. There are railroad rules and there are civil governmental laws. Rules are not laws. I presume Harding has been adjudicated by MM&A for his rule violations and lost his employment. Civil laws area enacted by the various civil jurisdictions and do not incorporate railraod rule books in their structures.
Railroad rules are rules promulgated by the railroad company. 112 was promulgated by an agency of the Canadian Government and is/was as much a law as not running a red traffic light snd obeying speed limits on streets and highways.
At a highway accident, if one was proven speeding or running a red light, then that individual is responsible.
I am NOT taking issue with how the jury interpreted it. I am taking issue with the information that they were presented. The jury’s decision making process is irrelevant to my point. I am not second guessing the jury. My point is that the jury was apparently given misleading information by the defense. I do believe it is possible that the misleading information did mislead the jury, but I don’t blame the jury if that did happen. If a jury is given false information, and if they have no way for them to know that it is false, it is natural and right that they act upon it as though it were true. So my point has nothing to do with the jury. My point is completely contained within the statement that I quoted from Mr. Walsh at the start of this thread.
Murphy Siding
In typical fashion, you have once again decided that only you know what the people mean based on what they said. The jury saw it differently than you did, so naturally you feel they just didn’t understand it as well as you do.
No, I don’t think there is anything I am suggesting that conflicts with the way the jury saw it. Maybe you should think about it a little more.
The only thing that matters ‘is’ what the jury thought it meant. What you somehow think the jury should think it meant ‘is’ not important.
I am NOT taking issue with how the jury interpreted it. I am taking issue with the information that they were presented. The jury’s decision making process is irrelevant to my point. I am not second guessing the jury. My point is that the jury was apparently given misleading information by the defense. I do believe it is possible that the misleading information did mislead the jury, but I don’t blame the jury if that did happen. If a jury is given false information, and if they have no way for them to know that it is false, it is natural and right that they act upon it as thou