he was chasing the bus so would have been able to tell better and why did they not check if the speedometer was really visible from where that trash nicole sat???
www.jewsnotzionists.org
www.inminds.com
eye-openers for zionists.
The questions about the speed of the vehicle were brought forward by Nicole in her testimony which alone made the lawsuits null and void. There was no reason to subpoena anyone else.
thats ridiculous, Ansell's testimony would be much more trustworthy being a stable grown man who drove behind the bus everyday knowing more about speed than then a frightened, probably shell-shocked girl who just claimed about it. not makin his testimony admissible is just preposterous,
www.jewsnotzionists.org
www.inminds.com
eye-openers for zionists.
Given Ansell's overwhelming hostility to the whole case, and his particular closeness to Nicole (to the point of being a surrogate father), it's at least plausible that he would've backed up her lie.
*If* she was lying. Was it definitive in the book that she was? Because it seems possible that she was actually the only one telling the truth. That her only 'dishonesty,' as it were, was not divulging this information to her opportunistic father and the lawyer sooner. Wouldn't this also reinforce Ansell's utter loathing of the whole litigation? That he not only had underlying ethical concerns (he's been through grief before, understands that money won't help, and that the lawyer is chasing both windmills and cash), but that he also knew that the case would only destroy another life --- the bus driver's? The only other character who truly seemed to care for the town's children? Why else is she so insistent that only the community could 'judge' her, not a jury of 12 random people?
Wouldn't it *also* better motivate that final lingering shot of the bus driver!?! Yet the whole of the Internet seems to be confirmed in seeing Nicole as a liar...
I highly doubt Ansell would be so forgiving of the bus driver if she had indeed been driving so fast and had caused the deaths of his two children. Ansell knew it wasn't her fault though and that it was just a terrible accident and that's why he just wants to get past it and grieve in peace.
Also, the bus driver mentioned that the community could judge her, because she knows she has done know wrong and she knows that the community understands this.
Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Criedshare
*If* she was lying. Was it definitive in the book that she was?Yes she was definitely lying in the book, just as she was definitely lying in the movie. share
[deleted]
I'm a lawyer in the States, but I suspect Canadian procedures are similar enough to make the strategies the same.
In litigation, the main object is to get the deep-pocket defendant to settle without a trial. To do that, you have to develop an airtight case -- "no genuine issue of material fact" -- either to get the judge to award a judgment without a trial or to make it clear that going to trial would not be worth it for the defendant. With Nicole stating positively that he driver was speeding, that can't be done -- even though there might also be evidence to the contrary. It would be worth the defendant's while to put up a hard fight, so they wouldn't settle.
http://redkincaid.com
I'd consider the school district to be a deep pocket defendant and they were definitely liable for their employee's actions, and admitting that she was speeding would only help their case.
share