Technical Misunderstanding in Lac Megantic Trial

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

Harding’s lawyer, Thomas Walsh told the court: “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 key phrase is “and relying on them.”  This is key and critical because the rules state, “The air brake system must not be depended upon to prevent an undesired movement.”  The key phrase here is “must not be depended upon.”  Of course, depended upon and “relying on them” means the same thing. So the question becomes, relied upon or depended on to do what? 

 

There are two ways of relying on the air brakes left on:

 

FIRST WAY:  Rely on them for backup for a train that has enough handbrakes set to provide 100% of the securement needed.  In this case, the air brakes are redundant brake securement that truly does function only as a backup to the possible failure of the handbrakes.So the air brakes are not being depended on to prevent an undesired movement; but they are being relied upon to be a backup securement in case the handbrakes fail, which is what Stephen Callaghan was referring to.

 

SECOND WAY:  Rely on them to supplement a number of handbrakes set so that the combination of handbrakes and air brakes are sufficient to secure the train, but the handbrakes alone are not sufficient.  In this case, the air brakes are not redundant providing backup to the handbrakes.  Instead, the air brakes are essential, and providing a necessary portion of the securement that the hand brakes do not provide.  Here the air brakes are being depended on as a primary part of the securement rather than just a redundant backup.     

 

FIRST WAY is generalized in the industry as Callaghan said.  Incidentally, it so happens that it was not permitted on the MM&A.

 

SECOND WAY is absolutely forbidden everywhere, yet that is what Harding did.  But Walsh’s comment makes it sound like Harding did item #1. 

 

Walsh says that Expert Witness Callaghan made this point quite clear.  I would really like to know exactly what Callaghan said in making this point.  Either he made it wrong or Walsh misunderstood him. 

 

If Callaghan made the point per item #1, then it is true.  But if he made it per item #2, then it is false.  In any case, Walsh makes the point in favor of Harding, and for that to be the case, the point has to be per item #2.  If item #2 were permitted, and if Harding used the procedure, it would allow Harding to blame the runaway on the one engine failing to pump air.  So it is really quite pivotal in the issue of Harding’s guilt or innocence.  It would also vindicate Harding for having done his handbrake effectiveness test with air brakes applied.   

 

In my opinion, this one technical point about leaving air brakes on during securement, but not relying on them, is the single most misunderstood detail of the of the entire episode.  For instance, misunderstanding it is why people blame the fire department for shutting down the one running engine.  It is also why people blame the shop forces for running a locomotive having mechanical problems.  

 

But I don’t know exactly what Callaghan said in making this point.  It is reported in this article that Callaghan stated that [for train securement] 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. Without further clarification, its meaning is not clear because semantics of the phrase, “and relying on them,” leaves it open to the two conflicting interpretations that I have mentioned above.    

 

Here is a link to the article that provides the quote by Mr. Walsh describing what Mr. Callaghan said about relying on air brakes during securement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/lac-megantic-jury-9th-day-1.4494746

 

I don't feel it's a technical misunderstanding as much as it is a euclidonian semantics game. In typical fashion, you have once again decided that only you know what the people mean based on what they said. The jury saw it differently than you did, so naturally you feel they just didn't understand it as well as you do. You are once again only a hop, skip & a jump away from saying it all depends on what the definition of 'is' is. 

[Firelock76]

Thanks for that Miningman, that's interesting!

 

[samfp1943]

BaltACD

 

 

Miningman

Firelock--

Canada has no "Double Jeopardy" law.  If a defendant has been found not guilty of a crime, the Crown may appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Should new evidence surface after a "not guilty" verdict, even years or decades later, the person found not guilty can and will be charged again and re-tried.  One jury giving a "not guilty" verdict  is not a lifetime pass.  It simply means that at that time and place, the Crown was not able to prove their case.  If the defendant is actually not guilty, all well and good, but if they are in fact guilty and sufficient evidence surfaces later, same guy back to court with same charges.

 

 

Sounds like Canadian 'justice' eats the rotten apple to the core.  Not Guilty is never the end of the potential for persecution.

 

Thanks, Miningman!  I for one appreciate the response!

  And to BaltACD... 'Persecution' may be the most appropriate response where no law concerning application of Double Jeopardy exists under the Canadian legal system. 

 

[BaltACD]

Miningman

Firelock--

Canada has no "Double Jeopardy" law.  If a defendant has been found not guilty of a crime, the Crown may appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Should new evidence surface after a "not guilty" verdict, even years or decades later, the person found not guilty can and will be charged again and re-tried.  One jury giving a "not guilty" verdict  is not a lifetime pass.  It simply means that at that time and place, the Crown was not able to prove their case.  If the defendant is actually not guilty, all well and good, but if they are in fact guilty and sufficient evidence surfaces later, same guy back to court with same charges.

Sounds like Canadian 'justice' eats the rotten apple to the core.  Not Guilty is never the end of the potential for persecution.

[Miningman]

Firelock--

Canada has no "Double Jeopardy" law.  If a defendant has been found not guilty of a crime, the Crown may appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Should new evidence surface after a "not guilty" verdict, even years or decades later, the person found not guilty can and will be charged again and re-tried.  One jury giving a "not guilty" verdict  is not a lifetime pass.  It simply means that at that time and place, the Crown was not able to prove their case.  If the defendant is actually not guilty, all well and good, but if they are in fact guilty and sufficient evidence surfaces later, same guy back to court with same charges.

[Firelock76]

Does Canadian law provide against double-jeopardy as American law does?  Here in the US if you're tried and aquitted that's the end of it, you can't be tried over and over again until the state gets the result it wants.

If that's not the case in Canada then this isn't necessarily over yet. 

Just asking, mind you. 

[Euclid]

Harding’s lawyer, Thomas Walsh told the court: “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 key phrase is “and relying on them.”  This is key and critical because the rules state, “The air brake system must not be depended upon to prevent an undesired movement.”  The key phrase here is “must not be depended upon.”  Of course, depended upon and “relying on them” means the same thing. So the question becomes, relied upon or depended on to do what? 

 

There are two ways of relying on the air brakes left on:

 

FIRST WAY:  Rely on them for backup for a train that has enough handbrakes set to provide 100% of the securement needed.  In this case, the air brakes are redundant brake securement that truly does function only as a backup to the possible failure of the handbrakes.So the air brakes are not being depended on to prevent an undesired movement; but they are being relied upon to be a backup securement in case the handbrakes fail, which is what Stephen Callaghan was referring to.

 

SECOND WAY:  Rely on them to supplement a number of handbrakes set so that the combination of handbrakes and air brakes are sufficient to secure the train, but the handbrakes alone are not sufficient.  In this case, the air brakes are not redundant providing backup to the handbrakes.  Instead, the air brakes are essential, and providing a necessary portion of the securement that the hand brakes do not provide.  Here the air brakes are being depended on as a primary part of the securement rather than just a redundant backup.     

 

FIRST WAY is generalized in the industry as Callaghan said.  Incidentally, it so happens that it was not permitted on the MM&A.

 

SECOND WAY is absolutely forbidden everywhere, yet that is what Harding did.  But Walsh’s comment makes it sound like Harding did item #1. 

 

Walsh says that Expert Witness Callaghan made this point quite clear.  I would really like to know exactly what Callaghan said in making this point.  Either he made it wrong or Walsh misunderstood him. 

 

If Callaghan made the point per item #1, then it is true.  But if he made it per item #2, then it is false.  In any case, Walsh makes the point in favor of Harding, and for that to be the case, the point has to be per item #2.  If item #2 were permitted, and if Harding used the procedure, it would allow Harding to blame the runaway on the one engine failing to pump air.  So it is really quite pivotal in the issue of Harding’s guilt or innocence.  It would also vindicate Harding for having done his handbrake effectiveness test with air brakes applied.   

 

In my opinion, this one technical point about leaving air brakes on during securement, but not relying on them, is the single most misunderstood detail of the of the entire episode.  For instance, misunderstanding it is why people blame the fire department for shutting down the one running engine.  It is also why people blame the shop forces for running a locomotive having mechanical problems.  

 

But I don’t know exactly what Callaghan said in making this point.  It is reported in this article that Callaghan stated that [for train securement] 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. Without further clarification, its meaning is not clear because semantics of the phrase, “and relying on them,” leaves it open to the two conflicting interpretations that I have mentioned above.    

 

Here is a link to the article that provides the quote by Mr. Walsh describing what Mr. Callaghan said about relying on air brakes during securement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/lac-megantic-jury-9th-day-1.4494746