 |
Re: Mr. Bruce: Re: Metrolink Safety Panel report
Author: John Bruce
Date: 01-10-2009 - 07:54
OK, OPRRMS, I'll take your word for it that you're not with Connex. But I'm still puzzled that you keep wanting to defend what as far as I can see is indefinsible.
Your extended meditation on the law firm simply says what I've already said, the long way round. It's up to a jury to decide the facts. At this point, the guy who's alleged this won't identify himself. If it goes to trial and he testifies, that will be different. On the other hand, the Connex operation has to be small enough that these clowns pretty much know who the supervisor(s) is or are, and it should be simple enough to find out who heard what. Same with the "bust" over the cell phone.
The quote, by the way, refers to supervisors in the plural, which strongly suggests the report of rule violation was made more than once, no?
Your extended meditation on the law firm simply says what I've already said, the long way round. It's up to a jury to decide the facts. At this point, the guy who's alleged this won't identify himself. If it goes to trial and he testifies, that will be different. On the other hand, the Connex operation has to be small enough that these clowns pretty much know who the supervisor(s) is or are, and it should be simple enough to find out who heard what. Same with the "bust" over the cell phone.
The quote, by the way, refers to supervisors in the plural, which strongly suggests the report of rule violation was made more than once, no?
