Excargodog

It is INHERENTLY no risk. It has a forty percent false negative rate, so even if you believe your client is guilty you do it anyway, hoping for a negative. And if he does blow it, you simply don't tell anyone it was ever done. It's protected by attorney-client privilege. It's a heads I win, tails it never happened scenario.

The predictive value positive or negative still remains dog poo. It might impress the very gullible though. But the lawyers from both sides will do what they can to keep the very gullible off the jury - unless they are a demographic favoring the side they want. In uber-liberal Seattle, they will be hard pressed to keep radical feminists off the jury who will assume the worst.

And seriously, best case scenario that a sixty-four year old married supervisor plied someone a quarter of a century younger than him with booze and she wound up in bed with him is NOT going to sit well with the jury. Especially after AAG just did a total revamp of their sexual harassment policies in response to this.

Any time you are denying criminal activity by pleading stupidity and gross buffoonery, you are on shaky ground, even in a criminal court. In a civil court it's a self inflicted wound.

John Carr

Stormy Daniels took a polygraph, so it must be legit.

Hetman

From Snopes:

badflaps

In his case, 60 would have been an optimal time to retire.

Dirtdiver

[QUOTE=Excargodog;2571904]Indeed. He may never get convicted, but they don't have to fire him - merely drag this out. Did you miss the numbers? Twenty-four years in the USAF - we can assume four years of that was Zoom school and he entered at 18, so that gets him up to age twenty-two when he was commissioned, and forty-two when he pulled the handles and retired. He has since worked twenty-two years for Alaska making him sixty-four.

AAG doesn't HAVE to fire him, but neither do they have to fly him, they can just drag this out another year and the problem evaporates, and no matter if he is on leave with or without pay, they are going to figure it's cheaper than taking the heat for putting him back in the cockpit.

[/QUOTE/]

Most of his 24 AF years were in the AFRES, so overlapped with the AK years.

Packrat

They'll give him the option of retiring in lieu of termination. They'll go this route regardless of the validity of the charge, but simply because of the amount of bad publicity the Company has been exposed to. I guarantee you there will be some jerk passengers who will ask senior Captains if they are the rapist.

Or as George Costanza says, "Its not a lie if YOU believe it."

Excargodog

[QUOTE=Dirtdiver;2572031]Ah, so his lawyer LIED for him. She presented weekend warrior duty as if it were 24 solid years under active duty orders. Why then should we believe anything else she has to say?

I'll grant you, both AFRES and ANG people make real contributions to the active forces, but it isn't the same, and both he and she knew it. Makes you wonder just what else she is weasel-wording.

Adlerdriver

If you want to continue trying and convicting this guy on APC, that's your prerogative. But on this particular point, you are starting to sound like an ass.

Someone who spent a portion of their 24 years of military service on active duty and the other part in the ANG or Reserves (or all of it in the ANG/Reserves) is a "24-year Air Force veteran". There's absolutely nothing being misrepresented or embellished with that statement.

You have no idea what was involved in this particular individuals military career. Deployments, unit activation, periods of full-time AD orders or simply flying and working far more than the minimum. There were years I served in the ANG where I flew more hours than when I was on active duty.

No one flying and maintaining currency and mission ready status in a USAF MDS as a traditional Guardsman or Reservist is only doing it on the "weekends". Referring to anyone serving in that capacity as a "weekend warrior" is pretty demeaning and a far bigger misrepresentation of reality than what you're accusing this lawyer of.

Get a grip.

Excargodog

Read the last paragraph. The woman is waving the flag to excuse behavior that - if not criminal - is at least reprehensible. Generals have been broken in rank and retired for less egregious behavior. 12th Air Force Commander Peter Kempf was demoted a star and summarily retired for less egregious behavior with a sober and consenting subordinate. Nobody, from a numbered Air For e Commander downto a flight lead would have his career survive something like this on active duty today.

When you wave the flag for someone like this guy you dishonor that flag. Get a friggin grip your own self.

Adlerdriver

First, the other officers to which you refer were convicted of, or admitted to their various misdeeds.

When he's convicted of a crime or "reprehensible behavior" is actually determined to have taken place, then I'm sure he'll get whatever punishment he deserves. Until then, there's the whole innocent until proven guilty thing and I'm willing to wait. It appears you are not.

Your original post claimed no concern over flag waving in an attempt to diminish alleged crimes. You claimed that calling this individual a "24-year Air Force veteran" was a lie. You went on to imply that the service of all ANG and Reserve service members is inferior to those folks on active duty. That's why I responded to you. You clearly don't have a clue about this specific subject and I suggest that maybe you should stick to what you know.