The jurors heard Harding on tape. Probably convinced them he wasn't a criminal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL5Apju72U4&t=1m44s
I have listened to that before, and it certainly is moving. It was like dropping a house on Harding. It is especially intense because they were both aware of the fire for some time, but had no idea that it was the oil train. Harding thought it was a broken gas line. There was even a point where someone inquired as to whether the train was still parked Nantes, and was assured that it was. However, it wasn't.
Also, someone driving came to a grade crossing where the runaway train was approaching. He said it burst out of the darkness with no lights, or horn signals and was running very fast.
Euclid That is interesting. Are you saying that, before the disaster, if CN had left a train parked at Nantes just like the MM&A oil train, they were free to leave it with a full service application of the automatic, full application of the independent and one handbrake on the lead locomotive, but NO HANDBRAKES ON THE CARS?
That is interesting. Are you saying that, before the disaster, if CN had left a train parked at Nantes just like the MM&A oil train, they were free to leave it with a full service application of the automatic, full application of the independent and one handbrake on the lead locomotive, but NO HANDBRAKES ON THE CARS?
No, CN's rules required handbrakes on the cars if the train was left on a grade greater than 0.75%, and IIRC the grade at Nantes is around 0.9%. Our rules also stated that "every effort must be made, including RTC pre-planning" to avoid leaving trains on grades exceeding 0.75%.
But even on lesser grades there is no way that one locomotive handbrake would hold the train, so my (and Callaghan's) point about relying on air brakes for securement still stands.
As it happens there are (conveniently) very few places on CN's main routes with grades greater than 0.75%, so in reality our rule meant that across Canada every single day trains were left unattended in sidings or on main tracks without any handbrakes on the cars, and this was legal.
If a CN locomotive had caught fire and been shut down its train would not have run away, as the air brakes on the cars were already set. But if someone gained entry to the cab and bumped the automatic brake handle then watch out.
The current rules require both handbrakes and a application of the automatic.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Murphy SidingThe only thing that matters 'is' what the jury thought it meant. What you somehow think the jury should think it meant 'is' not important.
Norm
Norm48327 Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid I am NOT taking issue with how the jury interpreted it. I am taking issue with the information that they were presented. The jury’s decision making process is irrelevant to my point. I am not second guessing the jury. My point is that the jury was apparently given misleading information by the defense. I do believe it is possible that the misleading information did mislead the jury, but I don’t blame the jury if that did happen. If a jury is given false information, and if they have no way for them to know that it is false, it is natural and right that they act upon it as though it were true. So my point has nothing to do with the jury. My point is completely contained within the statement that I quoted from Mr. Walsh at the start of this thread. As to your sentence above about “the only thing that matters,” I think there is more that matters. What also matters is that the trial gives the jury true and accurate information. In my opinion, what the jury was given with that quoted statement by Mr. Walsh was definitely corrupted by semantics. His quoted point joins Rule 112, and it therefore says it is okay to rely on air brakes during securement; but Rule 112 says it is not okay to depend on air brakes during securement. Both cannot be true. Without further information, Mr. Walsh’s point conflicts with Rule 112, and is therefore false. Here is the misleading part of Mr. Walsh’s quote in blue followed by the missing information in red which is needed to make a true statement: “…leaving your air brakes on [during securement] and relying on them was generalized in the industry prior to the tragedy and it was a way of functioning.” HOWEVER before leaving air brakes on and relying on them during securement, it was required to set enough hand brakes to provide 100% of the retarding force needed to secure the train, and to perform and pass a handbrake effectiveness test without any air brakes applied. Euclid; Bucyrus; Bucky, Please don't interpret my post as a personal attack because it is not intended to be so. If memory serves, back in 2013 you pretty well had Harding strung up from the highest tree in Canada as being the sole cause of the disaster. There were, along the line, mitigating circumstances that lead to his defense including the unforeseen event of the fire department shutting down the locomotive that was the lone source of air for the train brakes. We have seen this before including your instant determination of Brian Bostian, the engineer of Amtrak 188 to be at fault almost before the wreckage came to a full stop. Sure, there are times when the obvious cause is evident but under law that does not afford us the freedom to instantly judge them. What justification you had for your opinion at that time I do not know but I say your instant judgement of his guilt was out of order at the time because none of us here on the forum were aware of ALL of the details, actions, or omissions that led to the train derailing in the middle of town. The jury has spoken, yet you challenge their decision. You appear to disagree with their verdict even though the prosecution did not present a winning case and appear to wish Harding ill. Perhaps Harding did violate a company rule and was indeed guilty of that. OTOH, he appearently violated no civil law so the jury had no option but to vindicate him. That whole sad fiasco could have been prevented had everyone followed the rules to the letter but somewhere along the line one or more links in the chain of events got broken. I just ask you to accept the reality of the verdict and stop second-guessing the jury's motives. They have done their job to the best of their ability. I have been privy to several aircraft accident investigations and will say I never tried to determine a cause ahead of the NTSB. Awaiting the local jailhouse lawyer's rebuttal. LOL.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid I am NOT taking issue with how the jury interpreted it. I am taking issue with the information that they were presented. The jury’s decision making process is irrelevant to my point. I am not second guessing the jury. My point is that the jury was apparently given misleading information by the defense. I do believe it is possible that the misleading information did mislead the jury, but I don’t blame the jury if that did happen. If a jury is given false information, and if they have no way for them to know that it is false, it is natural and right that they act upon it as though it were true. So my point has nothing to do with the jury. My point is completely contained within the statement that I quoted from Mr. Walsh at the start of this thread. As to your sentence above about “the only thing that matters,” I think there is more that matters. What also matters is that the trial gives the jury true and accurate information. In my opinion, what the jury was given with that quoted statement by Mr. Walsh was definitely corrupted by semantics. His quoted point joins Rule 112, and it therefore says it is okay to rely on air brakes during securement; but Rule 112 says it is not okay to depend on air brakes during securement. Both cannot be true. Without further information, Mr. Walsh’s point conflicts with Rule 112, and is therefore false. Here is the misleading part of Mr. Walsh’s quote in blue followed by the missing information in red which is needed to make a true statement: “…leaving your air brakes on [during securement] and relying on them was generalized in the industry prior to the tragedy and it was a way of functioning.” HOWEVER before leaving air brakes on and relying on them during securement, it was required to set enough hand brakes to provide 100% of the retarding force needed to secure the train, and to perform and pass a handbrake effectiveness test without any air brakes applied.
Murphy Siding Euclid
Euclid
I am NOT taking issue with how the jury interpreted it. I am taking issue with the information that they were presented. The jury’s decision making process is irrelevant to my point. I am not second guessing the jury. My point is that the jury was apparently given misleading information by the defense. I do believe it is possible that the misleading information did mislead the jury, but I don’t blame the jury if that did happen. If a jury is given false information, and if they have no way for them to know that it is false, it is natural and right that they act upon it as though it were true. So my point has nothing to do with the jury. My point is completely contained within the statement that I quoted from Mr. Walsh at the start of this thread.
As to your sentence above about “the only thing that matters,” I think there is more that matters. What also matters is that the trial gives the jury true and accurate information. In my opinion, what the jury was given with that quoted statement by Mr. Walsh was definitely corrupted by semantics. His quoted point joins Rule 112, and it therefore says it is okay to rely on air brakes during securement; but Rule 112 says it is not okay to depend on air brakes during securement. Both cannot be true.
Without further information, Mr. Walsh’s point conflicts with Rule 112, and is therefore false.
Here is the misleading part of Mr. Walsh’s quote in blue followed by the missing information in red which is needed to make a true statement:
“…leaving your air brakes on [during securement] and relying on them was generalized in the industry prior to the tragedy and it was a way of functioning.”
HOWEVER before leaving air brakes on and relying on them during securement, it was required to set enough hand brakes to provide 100% of the retarding force needed to secure the train, and to perform and pass a handbrake effectiveness test without any air brakes applied.
Euclid; Bucyrus; Bucky,
Please don't interpret my post as a personal attack because it is not intended to be so.
If memory serves, back in 2013 you pretty well had Harding strung up from the highest tree in Canada as being the sole cause of the disaster. There were, along the line, mitigating circumstances that lead to his defense including the unforeseen event of the fire department shutting down the locomotive that was the lone source of air for the train brakes. We have seen this before including your instant determination of Brian Bostian, the engineer of Amtrak 188 to be at fault almost before the wreckage came to a full stop. Sure, there are times when the obvious cause is evident but under law that does not afford us the freedom to instantly judge them.
What justification you had for your opinion at that time I do not know but I say your instant judgement of his guilt was out of order at the time because none of us here on the forum were aware of ALL of the details, actions, or omissions that led to the train derailing in the middle of town.
The jury has spoken, yet you challenge their decision. You appear to disagree with their verdict even though the prosecution did not present a winning case and appear to wish Harding ill.
Perhaps Harding did violate a company rule and was indeed guilty of that. OTOH, he appearently violated no civil law so the jury had no option but to vindicate him.
That whole sad fiasco could have been prevented had everyone followed the rules to the letter but somewhere along the line one or more links in the chain of events got broken.
I just ask you to accept the reality of the verdict and stop second-guessing the jury's motives. They have done their job to the best of their ability.
I have been privy to several aircraft accident investigations and will say I never tried to determine a cause ahead of the NTSB.
Awaiting the local jailhouse lawyer's rebuttal. LOL.
Norm,
First of all, I am not second guessing the jury in this case even though you are the third person here to accuse me of that. My questions go to the misrepresentation of technical details that was presented to the jury. I think I have explained it as clearly and carefully as it can possibly be explained.
I can’t second guess the jury because I have no idea what they should have decided. I put myself into their position and can assure you that I would not know how to determine criminal negligence based on all of the abstruse minutia about reasonable doubt, reasonable person, culpability, intention, gross negligence, willful blindness, recklessness, and the 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. I can understand what those terms mean, but I don't know how to measure them in the actions that preceded the accident. So, if I were on the jury, I would have found the defendant to be not guilty, just as the jury did.
I am also not expressing regret that Harding was not found guilty. I am only interested in the technical points of operation that I have mentioned. Mainly, I would like to know if the court believed that Harding had broken Rule 112 or not.
To your other point about stringing up Harding: It was actually me defending Harding against many others on this forum. Back in 2013, I had a thread titled: MM&A President Burkhardt Blaming Oil Train Engineer. That was right after the wreck, and Burkhardt immediately blamed the fire department. Then he switched and blamed the engineer. In hindsight, he might have been right, but at the time, I felt it was premature. There was also something about Burkhardt’s logic that I felt was flawed.
In any case I was accused here of blaming the accident on Burkhardt, which of course, I was not doing. I was accusing Burkhardt for prematurely blaming Harding. Nevertheless, I was bitterly and widely accused of throwing Burkhardt under the bus by many here who were throwing Harding under the bus. Those people succeeded in getting the thread locked when they could not get me to join them in throwing Harding under the bus.
Here is that infamous thread: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/219868.aspx?page=1
I see it has picked up over 10,000 more views since being locked.
EuclidFirst of all, I am not second guessing the jury in this case even though you are the third person here to accuse me of that. My questions go to the misrepresentation of technical details that was presented to the jury.
Why didn't the Crown call upon you as their Expert Witness to explain things to the jury?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid Murphy Siding OK Perry Mason. Nobody at the trial is as smart as you are. We get what you're saying. The discussion up above about double jeopardy suggests that there will be more trials. Maybe you should do your civic duty and get in touch with the prosecutors. Since they obviously aren’t up to your level or they would have caught this big technical misunderstanding, I’m sure they would welcome someone of your caliber and experience pointing out what they’re doing wrong. With all due respect, I don’t think you do get what I am saying. It seems your resentment stands in the way.
Murphy Siding OK Perry Mason. Nobody at the trial is as smart as you are. We get what you're saying. The discussion up above about double jeopardy suggests that there will be more trials. Maybe you should do your civic duty and get in touch with the prosecutors. Since they obviously aren’t up to your level or they would have caught this big technical misunderstanding, I’m sure they would welcome someone of your caliber and experience pointing out what they’re doing wrong.
With all due respect, I don’t think you do get what I am saying. It seems your resentment stands in the way.
With all due respect, if we're all hearing it the same way and it's not the way you think you're broadcasting it, perhaps you're not explaining yourself well enough. You appear to be saying that the prosecution screwed up because they’re not as astute as you are. They’re professional attorneys and you’re….not.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
charlie hebdo Apparently lost sight of in the minutiae of Euclid's infinite discussion is this: much of an entire town was destroyed and a large number of its residents lost their lives through no fault of their own. The penny pinching, safety last railroad declared bankruptcy and walked away. Prosecutors took pity on Harding, etc., and let them walk, too. Who's taking responsibility?
Apparently lost sight of in the minutiae of Euclid's infinite discussion is this: much of an entire town was destroyed and a large number of its residents lost their lives through no fault of their own. The penny pinching, safety last railroad declared bankruptcy and walked away. Prosecutors took pity on Harding, etc., and let them walk, too. Who's taking responsibility?
BaltACD Euclid First of all, I am not second guessing the jury in this case even though you are the third person here to accuse me of that. My questions go to the misrepresentation of technical details that was presented to the jury. Why didn't the Crown call upon you as their Expert Witness to explain things to the jury?
Euclid First of all, I am not second guessing the jury in this case even though you are the third person here to accuse me of that. My questions go to the misrepresentation of technical details that was presented to the jury.
Johnny
Murphy SidingWith all due respect, if we're all hearing it the same way and it's not the way you think you're broadcasting it, perhaps you're not explaining yourself well enough. You appear to be saying that the prosecution screwed up because they’re not as astute as you are. They’re professional attorneys and you’re….not.
"We're all?" Perhaps all of you have an axe to grind, and that makes you hear it the same way.
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo Apparently lost sight of in the minutiae of Euclid's infinite discussion is this: much of an entire town was destroyed and a large number of its residents lost their lives through no fault of their own. The penny pinching, safety last railroad declared bankruptcy and walked away. Prosecutors took pity on Harding, etc., and let them walk, too. Who's taking responsibility? Somewhere up above I thought I read that the company was going to face a trial as well. I presume that means the officers of the company and the managers involved in the incident. I don't know if it's fair to say that the prosecutors took pity on Harding, etc. That's kind of walking down the euclid path. Wouldn't prosecutors want to prosecute?
Somewhere up above I thought I read that the company was going to face a trial as well. I presume that means the officers of the company and the managers involved in the incident. I don't know if it's fair to say that the prosecutors took pity on Harding, etc. That's kind of walking down the euclid path. Wouldn't prosecutors want to prosecute?
EuclidMaybe the prosecutors screwed up.
And maybe the case they had available to present wasn't sufficient to assure a conviction on the charges brought. And that's the case they had to prove.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Euclid Murphy Siding With all due respect, if we're all hearing it the same way and it's not the way you think you're broadcasting it, perhaps you're not explaining yourself well enough. You appear to be saying that the prosecution screwed up because they’re not as astute as you are. They’re professional attorneys and you’re….not. "We're all?" Perhaps all of you have an axe to grind, and that makes you hear it the same way.
Murphy Siding With all due respect, if we're all hearing it the same way and it's not the way you think you're broadcasting it, perhaps you're not explaining yourself well enough. You appear to be saying that the prosecution screwed up because they’re not as astute as you are. They’re professional attorneys and you’re….not.
Bucky"We're all?" Perhaps all of you have an axe to grind, and that makes you hear it the same way.
Murphy SidingYeah! That's the ticket! No one understands you so it must be everyone else's fault.
Old saying: "If it seems like everyone around you is the problem, maybe they aren't the problem at all."
This is becoming circuitous and almost personal.
I wish to clarify my position. I do not believe that Harding should go back to jail. But I also blieve that the "Not-Guilty" verdict is bad for Canadian Law, for Railroad Safety in general, and for the impression of the Public about the railroad industry.
1. Harding broke the law. 112 is law, not just a rule of any particular railroad but issued by the Canadian Government.
2. A locomotive engineer historically has responsibility for the safety of his train, it effects on the public and any passengers and other crew-members.
Not only did Harding break the law, but also did not shut down the defective locmotive and replace it with a good operating one. Every single locomotive (or mu-train) engineer that I have ever known would have done that without first contacting any supervisor. Oil on the windshield of the cab should have been the final indication that such action was necessary. If the fire had not broen out, the locomotive would have shut down anyway because of low oil.
I have stated all along that Harding should have been judged guilty but with the extenuating circumstances of a lack of safety culture and training that led to his innaction, with sentence commuted to time already served awaiting trial.
That responsibility must be retained for North American railroading in general. A lomotive engineer is not a flunky following orders but a highly skilled technician who is directly responsibile for safety. The not-guilty verdict tends to remove that responsibility and that is why I think it should be appealed.
selectorThis is becoming circuitous...
It usually does. "Yes, but..."
Euclid ..................In any case I was accused here of blaming the accident on Burkhardt, which of course, I was not doing. I was accusing Burkhardt for prematurely blaming Harding. Nevertheless, I was bitterly and widely accused of throwing Burkhardt under the bus by many here who were throwing Harding under the bus. Those people succeeded in getting the thread locked when they could not get me to join them in throwing Harding under the bus. Here is that infamous thread: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/219868.aspx?page=1 I see it has picked up over 10,000 more views since being locked.
..................In any case I was accused here of blaming the accident on Burkhardt, which of course, I was not doing. I was accusing Burkhardt for prematurely blaming Harding. Nevertheless, I was bitterly and widely accused of throwing Burkhardt under the bus by many here who were throwing Harding under the bus. Those people succeeded in getting the thread locked when they could not get me to join them in throwing Harding under the bus.
Again, rule 112 is a civil rule. It has the power of a law because it was/is promulgated by the Canadian Government. It is not a compapany rule, and I do not understand why people keep repeating this idea. The Crown's failure to prove the case is its failure, and the jury misunderstood the nature of the rule violation.
Again, Gulty with extreme extenuating circumstances would have been correct.
selector This is becoming circuitous and almost personal.
Correct on both accounts. In the interest of fairness, this is a thread started by euclid. It should be his prerogative to be as circuitous as he is comfortable with. I suppose as long as he understands what he means he’s accomplished his task.
Well, there at least two sides to every story and the truth may lie somewhere in between. Cops are trained to dig out the facts rather then rely on "he said/she said".
That said, I do not dislike anyone on this forum. I only ask that they post factual information related to the subject at hand and not intentionally rearranging words to fit their personal agenda. Where it gets sticky is when one poster who appears to be protected for whatever reason keeps disagreeing with others and constantly changing his posts to fit his agenda.
Murphy Siding selector This is becoming circuitous and almost personal. Correct on both accounts. In the interest of fairness, this is a thread started by euclid. It should be his prerogative to be as circuitous as he is comfortable with. I suppose as long as he understands what he means he’s accomplished his task.
23 17 46 11
edblysard Murphy Siding selector This is becoming circuitous and almost personal. Correct on both accounts. In the interest of fairness, this is a thread started by euclid. It should be his prerogative to be as circuitous as he is comfortable with. I suppose as long as he understands what he means he’s accomplished his task. I don't understand why you guys even bother to try anymore....
I don't understand why you guys even bother to try anymore....
daveklepper Again, rule 112 is a civil rule. It has the power of a law because it was/is promulgated by the Canadian Government. It is not a compapany rule, and I do not understand why people keep repeating this idea. The Crown's failure to prove the case is its failure, and the jury misunderstood the nature of the rule violation. Again, Gulty with extreme extenuating circumstances would have been correct.
Dave, I understand your point, and it's a good one...or at least, it has both 'face validity' and logical validity. To me.
Maybe it's because of my background in motivational psych, organizational psych, leadership studies, and ethics that has me siding rather convincedly with the jury. I place a huge ton of weight on the leadership in a troubled organization as much as if they were untroubled and doing fabulously. The leaders set the tone and the culture. They establish and enforce adherence to norms, conventions, values, and policies that make the workplace what it is, warts and all. Where safety is a concern, it should be the leaders that notice and take steps for a remedy. I understand that these things take time and happen by degrees, but in the absence of their taking steps to have outsiders come in and critically analyse the operation from time to time, the leaders are left with the bag where it should be...solidly within their grasp.
For me, Harding would be guilty if:
He did not set the number of brakes per his last instruction or convention;
He did not leave the engine running, against established practices, policy, and /or instruction; and
When he learned the engine had been shut down, he did not return and start it up again.
He did what he was told to do, and then slept soundly, as he had done 100 times previously.
-Crandell
At some point, we were discussing Harding’s vast amount of experience as an engineer on MM&A and other lines prior. The point was that Harding should know full well how to secure a train. But there is another point related to his experience that needs to be explained.
Before the train ran away, Harding was having a phone conversation with his supervisor. The supervisor told Harding that the fire department had shut down the one running engine. How could someone with a lot of experience just let that go by and not react to the fact that it was fairly likely that the loss of air pumping would cause the air brakes to release? Harding must not have realized that danger. How could anybody miss it? How could Harding with all his years of experience possibly miss it?
Harding's apology in French, and in English at link.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/tom-harding-megantic-trial-statement-1.4498223
edblysardI don't understand why you guys even bother to try anymore....
Ed,
IMO the indefenseable have nothing worthy of posting other than "fake news". Just make up sonmething to keep the story going and viewers entertained seems to be the mantra of the day. It's a reflection on the mentality of their viewers.
That said, I try to read both sides of the story before I draw conclusions. Neither side of the media is totally trustworthy.
Craandell, you have reinforced my point-of-view. And again I say guilty but with extreme extenuating circumstances. Not to be put in jail to begin with let alone returned to jail. You are defining a locomotive engineer as a flunky who follows orders. That simply is not true. The engineer in the end has responsibility for the safety of his train. Many engineers I knew had tales of a dispatcher giving an order, and then their explaining to the dispatcher why they would not follow it and why it must be changed. Fortunately for everyone concerned, the dispatcher then understood the situaiton and made the necessary modification.
What would you do if you saw red over red and the dispatcher said the signal is not functioning properly, proceed At Track Speed to the next signal? (Not that I would espect any dispatcher to say that!)
If an engineer is only a flunky, than driverless trains with automation make sense. But it does not make sense because a human being who can be resonsible is important. But not one who just follows orders.
Mr. Walsh said this:
“The Crown’s expert witness Stephen Callaghan has stated quite clearly that leaving your air brakes on and relying on them was generalized in the industry prior to the tragedy and it was a way of functioning.”
The quote by Mr. Walsh citing what Mr. Callaghan said is self-evident in that it intended to mitigate the negligence of Mr. Harding in failing to properly secure his train. However, I cannot draw any conclusions about the truth of what Mr. Callaghan said because I don’t know what he said. All I know is that Mr. Walsh has characterized as to what Mr. Callaghan said.
What is obvious, however, is the conclusion Mr. Walsh draws from what Mr. Callaghan said; and that conclusion is not accurate. In modern times, at least, it has never been acceptable to rely or depend on air brakes to secure a train on grades such as the one between Nantes and Lac Megantic.
However Mr. Callaghan’s point, as characterized by Mr. Walsh, contains nothing that ties it to the runaway. It is only a generalized statement that, prior to the accident, leaving air brakes on was normal practice. However, the statement does not specify for what purpose the air brakes are left on or under what circumstances. For instance, engineers left their brakes on and relied on them when descending grades or when standing on sidings with the crew remaining onboard.
The point contains nothing that ties it to train securement. If the point were made in relation to the runaway from Nantes, the point would be false due to the steepness of that particular grade. It was never acceptable to secure a train with air brakes at Nantes, either before or after the disaster.
So while, Mr. Callaghan’s point is 100% true as far as it goes, it is irrelevant to the Lac Megantic runaway. It has no connection with what Harding did in securing the train at Nantes.
selectorMaybe it's because of my background in motivational psych, organizational psych, leadership studies, and ethics that has me siding rather convincedly with the jury. For me, Harding would be guilty if: ...When he learned the engine had been shut down, he did not return and start it up again.
...When he learned the engine had been shut down, he did not return and start it up again.
Crandell,
I don’t understand what you are saying. You say you side with the jury in finding Harding not guilty. But you then say you would regard Harding to be guilty if when he learned the engine had been shut down, he did not return to start it up again.
Well he did learn the engine had been shut down and did not return to start it up again. So why then do you side with the jury in finding him not guilty?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.