I disagree that a forensic investigator cannot see the big picture. Often we see more than you think. We usually work together with other investigators looking into human factors and other circumstances of an incident. We compare notes and trade information routinely, which then leads us in new directions. Often we then discover new and often shocking side data which then points to additional possibly contributing factors - which they then chase after; even such things as underlying pressure from a railroad or other employer to fudge the rules on a daily basis. I could go on.

In this particular case, the Idea that a locomotive engineer passing a group of people assembled near (but not on) the tracks should be expected to be aware of the significance of such, is specious on its face. How is he to know of their ill intentions unless previously informed; and why would the railroad have informed him after they denied permissions to enter the bridge and rightfully expected no one to do so. The only honest answer is they are not - period. Nor is it reasonable or prudent to sound the alarm for just anyone milling about near the tracks - that would give 98% false alarms and be worse than useless. So how did the jury get convinced otherwise? Simple - enough - facts were excluded from the jury by limited scope answers - such as I was forced to give in the cases I worked on.


As to whether the 2nd train's engineer did or did not hit the brakes hard enough, and why - again an interesting and perhaps unnecessarily inflammatory side note, but irrelevant none-the-less, as any competent forensic investigator could have testified to - if allowed that is.

We would have done the calculations and proved them with actual on-site tests; which almost always show that at normal mainline speeds, the required braking distances exceeds the available sight distance to any obstacle, unless there is an advance warning method triggered beyond sight distance, such as a block signal system. Even if he/she hit the brakes hard at first sight, the train is unlikely to stop in time - so this should not be considered a contributing factor either. Again - the prohibition of "Whole Truth" answers skews the understanding of the jurors.


As to my understanding of "how the legal system works":

As often as I have seen it in action, I understand it all too well - I simple do not accept it as it is; and believe that it is not the best we can do; that its faults must be corrected. Short of that I believe it is more often unjust than just, more often than not ignorant of the whole truth of a matter, and thoroughly intellectually dishonest, as it actually operates.

Well, since I am out of time - it seems that you and I will just have to disagree on some things.