From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   dpeltier@my-deja.com wrote:   
   >>On 7/12/14 1:07 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
      
   >>>If the facts of the investigation fail to support indictments against   
   >>>the three men, it's unethical that they're sitting on this report. If   
   >>>the fact do support the indictments, it's unethical that the report   
   >>>wasn't released so there's public confidence in the prosecution and   
   >>>so the defendants may prepare a proper defense.   
      
   >Don't know much about Canadian courts, but in the US the report would not   
   >be admissible at trial anyhow. Both sides would probably be find ways to   
   >get hold of most of the evidence that was uncovered by the safety board   
   >proceedings (just subpoena the witnesses and investigators as needed). The   
   >jury is supposed to draw their own conclusions from the evidence, not   
   >follow the reasoning of the safety board.   
      
   I agree. The point would be that they are experts, and if their   
   investigation didn't support the theory of the prosecution, the jury would not   
   convict.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)