Does it come with the law degree, I don’t know…..?

Here’s a NOLA editorial:
http://blog.nola.com/jeff_crouere/2007/07/finally_justice_served_in_new.html

Then again, Foti would know all about lethal cocktails, wouldn’t he? He also knows about people dying under his “care”.

http://www.lagop.com/documents/Foti.pdf

To wit: the “witness” said he saw saw Dr. Pou takling with nurses, and one of the nurses appeared to be crying and also that he saw Dr. Pou with some syringes.

It wasn’t the fact that he questioned another physician, it was the fact that what he claimed to have seen and heard would not by any reasonable standard be considered criminal activity. He did not say he saw Dr. Pou administer drugs to patient and he did not say he heard anyone say they were planning to euthanize a patient.

Patients died at that hospital. There was no electric power, no air conditioning, it was summer, in New Orleans, no sewage, no sanitation, no food service, the streets were flooded, armed criminals were invading the hospital. The patients in question were non-ambulatory, bedridden, in some cases ventilator-dependent. The hospital had evacuated all of the patients who could be moved. In that setting under those conditions, which is worse than most people have ever experienced, some of those patients died while under the care of the doctors at that hospital. Were the patients sedated more than might have otherwise been necessary had the disaster not have occurred? It wouldn’t surprise me. Tell me, counselor, what else would anyone be able to do to make them more comfortable? And is it possible that under the total stress of those living conditions the double effect of sedation might have a higher morbidity and mortality? It wouldn’t surprise me at all; but just being there would have likely have done that, the conditions being so utterly degraded.

So what this doctor-witness says he thinks he saw really amounted to not much: speculation and heresay. That patients died doesn’t make for manslaughter. It makes for disaster.

And that Mr. Charles Foti chooses to take that and tries to make political hay from it makes for rank indecency.

Someone doesn’t know what palliative care is.

>>What about those witnesses’ statements was not credible?

“Only nurses give injections”

The “null hypothesis” or “presumption of innocence” would be that the doctor was trying to provide palliative care to dying patients under extraordinary circumstances. Anybody who knows anything about medicine and had a television understood what the docs went through.

Unfortunately, the other “null hypothesis” with regards to Louisiana elected officials and government service is incompetence and corruption. William Jefferson. Police, in uniform, looting stores for luxury items. And again, it was on TV.

So no, it’s not hard to believe that the docs did the best they could, and a corrupt Louisiana official took some wild statement and used it for self-serving purposes.

The jury ruled as it should.

This is obvious to everyone except you.

What about those witnesses’ statements was not credible? The mere fact that they questioned another physician?

Someone doesn’t know what a strawman is.

CJD:
When you have to resort to strawman arguments, you’ve lost.

They are the ones who deserve “demonizing”. Them, and that unethical grandstanding buffoon Charles Foti.

Tell me, why don’t you demonize those witnesses who came forward?