Monsanto loses Roundup lawsuit

[RickB]

Anyone defending monsanto needs to read the transcripts of the closing arguments...it tells much more than just the evidence that is also overwhelming in support of the plaintiff...

Of course there are probably still people that think tobacco is harmless...DOH!

There痴 no oath or burden of proof tied to opening or closing arguments.

 

[radios1]

To win a reward you have to show/prove damage...

I wonder how long before there are warnings on the RU packaging...?

no, civil law is based on preponderance of evidence, whoever presents the best looking argument wins. it's not like criminal law, where you get a fair trial..

 

[vvanders]

Haven't read the transcripts but saw an interesting breakdown earlier. They won not on proving glyco parts of Roundup were harmful but the other 50% of ingredients. So each time they brought up any defense of glyco the prosecution could just say that part wasn't what they were focusing on.

Not a huge fan of Monsanto and they've got an incentive to not disclose issues, it'll be interesting to see where this goes.

 

[/pine]

There痴 no oath or burden of proof tied to opening or closing arguments.

I never said there was...what I said was that they (closing arguments) spoke volumes...did you hear or read a transcript?

Without even hearing any testimony an unbiased jury would rule in favor of the plaintiff after hearing just the closing arguments...

The defense used incomplete citations from expert scientific witnesses in a blatant manner to mislead the jury...in rebuttal the plaintiff's attorneys embarrassed the monsanto defense to points beyond reproach...The jury was not fooled by monsanto's fraudulent remarks...!

 

[radios1]

Anyone defending monsanto needs to read the transcripts of the closing arguments...it tells much more than just the evidence that is also overwhelming in support of the plaintiff...

Of course there are probably still people that think tobacco is harmless...DOH!

actually, George Burns started smoking at age 9, and lived to 100 years old, there are many others much older than him that used tobacco most of their life without a problem.. only certain people get cancer from it..

 

[Jstpssng]

actually, George Burns started smoking at age 9, and lived to 100 years old, there are many others much older than him that used tobacco most of their life without a problem.. only certain people get cancer from it..

You sound like my herbicide class instructor from long ago... Agent Orange isn't harmful, and DDT just got a bad rap.

 

[Stimw]

I make it a policy not to drink the stuff!
Also, I have never seen or heard of a tobacco farmer holding someone down and making them smoke!
The co-conspirator in tobacco is EVERY city, state and/or government that collected taxes on it's sale.
We are a country "Of the lawyers, By the lawyers and For the lawyers" !!

 

[/pine]

no, civil law is based on preponderance of evidence, whoever presents the best looking argument wins. it's not like criminal law, where you get a fair trial..

civil awards are based on damages...if there is no proof or evidence of damages there is no case...ask any ambulance chaser...! duh!

 

[/pine]

actually, George Burns started smoking at age 9, and lived to 100 years old, there are many others much older than him that used tobacco most of their life without a problem.. only certain people get cancer from it..

Some people think the world is flat...LoL...!

 

[kenmac]

sprayed the fence line today. There is most likely more cancer causing agents in the food we eat than the weed killer I use. Our food comes from all over the world. No telling what it's sprayed with, or injected with before it reaches our tables