“I responded with something like: ‘She’s 26 years old, what value is there, who cares,'” Auderer stated.“I intended the comment as a mockery of lawyers – I was imitating what a lawyer tasked with negotiating the case would be saying and being sarcastic to express that they shouldn’t be coming up with crazy arguments to minimize the payment.”
You can choose to not believe him but it changes the context completely.
Context is everything, that is true. Without hearing the entire conversation you never can know what was meant by an excerpt.
Maybe what he claims is true but that is not what he said and the tone used doesn’t support his assertion. He laughed a couple of times and there is nothing in the tape suggesting that he was paraphrasing. He wasn’t responsible for the crash and he was speaking in what he thought was a private conversation. That’s pretty much the only defense, the conversation was dark and spinning it won’t help.
if he was mocking lawyers
well ok then
indeed it does. which makes me curious why the crucial evidence is always left out of the excerpt...
“I responded with something like: ‘She’s 26 years old, what value is there, who cares,’” Auderer stated.
“I intended the comment as a mockery of lawyers – I was imitating what a lawyer tasked with negotiating the case would be saying and being sarcastic to express that they shouldn’t be coming up with crazy arguments to minimize the payment.”
Sadly this is absolutely true... Lawyers (largely) are scumbags.