[longshadow]

That looks like a good analysis. No question the plaintiffs made a fine case and the summation was a crusher. The response by comparison is bound to look fragmented and lacking in focus.

I was especially impressed by the way the defense summation skipped over the perjury of its own clients. That will impress the judge favorably.

[VadeRetro]

That's in the spirit of ID/creation itself. If you can't spin it with ease, don't see it.

[VadeRetro]

Actually, we didn't read carefully enough.

And that is why the main support for the plaintiffs' claim is a mountain of press clippings built on a molehill of statements allegedly made by one board member who, troubled and wrestling with the addiction of Oxycontin, occasionally allowed people to put words in his mouth.

So all the perjury issues are dismissed in a simple, one-sentence paragraph. Except I seem to recall that both Buckingham and Bonsell had "P-word" problems.