Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc James Small wrote: > > At 11:40 PM 9/6/1999 -0500, Eric Welch wrote: > >So, no matter how innocent they are, your argument is that they are guilty, > >because the judge can't call them innocent. Right? Wrong. > > > >It's pretty clear from the text that they couldn't be convicted because > >they were innocent, even if that finding is legally impossible. > > Well, it is pretty clear from the evidence as produced in the press and as > summarized by the judge that the photographers were not "innocent parties". > That is, there is some evidence that they were chasing the car in which Di > was riding. > > But, who knows? I wasn't there, and the topic has taken a life far beyond > my interest in the unfortunate demise of a rather shallow and value-less > creature. People die. Requiescat in pace. I have said my prayers for her > soul, and really want to get back to cameras. > > Marc > I had not great love for Lady Di either. But "chasing" does what. I guess the fox runs because the hounds chase it. But Lady Di finds it inconvenient to have photographs taken with Rich Fat Arab guy and lets her driver floor it as a matter of course. The photographers don't force them to do that. They are assigned to shoot Lady Di and friend. I don't think the fact that the photographers whose job was to stay with them you could say "chase" them are a party to a crime. I resent the fact that they had to be put up in front of the magistrate. They did not need to be put on trial. Mark Rabiner