Quote:
Originally posted by Botnst
I report, you decide.
But lets take a moment to guess.
Who counts bodies?
A. Insurance companies
B. lawyers
C. government
D. Greenpeace
E. The company
At trial, whose figures were accepted?
A. Insurance companies
B. lawyers
C. government
D. Greenpeace
E. The company
Unless we assume the general conspiracy theory of government-company collusion, I'd guess that the government was probably more accurate. If the gov lied, I guess they would have to pay-off or intimidate lawyers and the insurance companies.
I've never bribed nor intimidated anybody (okay, I've done both to my dog), so I haven't any idea whether its possible. It probably is. Lets ask some lawyers how often they're offered bribes and how much they get. Ditto insurance companies. Oh, they'll lie about that, too.
On the other hand, would Greenpeace have any reason to inflate the figures?
Botnst
|
I am not following you on this one. In your earlier post, you said that the "courts" said that 3,800 people died. In the post quoted above you seem to have substituted "government" for "courts". While the courts are part of the government, the two words have dramatically different meanings in this context.
I have not followed this story, so I might be missing something, but if a group of plaintiffs proved in court that 3,800 people died in a chemical plant disaster, then the actual number of deaths is probably higher than that. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof, generally, and a court is restricted to what is admitted into evidence. In a disaster like this one, there are going to be deaths that the plaintiffs either can't or won't try to prove because of difficulties with the rules of evidence or for some strategic reason. It really has nothing to do with conspiracies or bribery.