Ustwo,
A google search on the text you first presented reveals the quote as you presented it came from an Ann Coulter column, since regurgitated on a number of other sites, some citing Ann, others anonymously.
As I first suspected, the presentation was one of creative editing, to make it sound like Edwards was having some kind of mystic seance in the courtroom, when really all he was saying was how it was up to him to as a lawyer to represent her in the courtroom where she couldn't speak on her own behalf.
For completeness, you left out some of Ann's interjections, and since I don't know if you were quoting her article or a regurgitation of it, here is her presentation (the whole column can be found a few places, this is one:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles...e.asp?ID=14143):
Quote:
In one of Edwards' silver-tongued arguments to the jury on behalf of a girl born with cerebral palsy, he claimed he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him:
"She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'"
She's saying, "My lawyer needs a new Jaguar ... "
"She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now – I didn't plan to talk about this – right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."
Well, tell her to pipe down, would you? I'm trying to hear the evidence in a malpractice lawsuit.
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde on the death of Little Nell, one must have a heart of stone to read this without laughing. What is this guy, a tent-show preacher? An off-the-strip Las Vegas lounge psychic couldn't get away with this routine.
|
Hard to disagree, huh? Edwards claiming to read minds or be some kind of clairvoyant medium in the courtroom? Nuts, right?
I will be the first to admit, I haven't the time resources to pull up the courtroom records and read every piece of the case, but here is a more complete quotation of that part of the testimony, putting it much more in context.
Quote:
Edwards' summation to the jury, his colleagues say, was one of the best they ever heard.
The infant, Edwards said, could not speak for herself, but she could talk to the jury through the fetal monitor strip that recorded her heartbeat as she made her way through her mother's birth canal.
"What she said to them is this," Edwards said, according to a trial transcript. "She said at 3 o'clock, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4 o'clock, 'I'm having a little bit of trouble, but I'm doing okay.' Five o'clock she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30 she said, 'I need out.' "
And as Edwards went on, he portrayed Jennifer's muffled cries as she neared death, only to survive brain-damaged.
"She speaks to you," Edwards told the jury. "But now she speaks to you, not through a fetal heart monitor strip; she speaks to you through me. And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence; she's inside me, and she's talking to you. This is her; what I'm saying to you is what Jennifer Campbell has to say to you."
|
So no, it doesn't appear that little Jennifer spoke words to John, but he clearly isn't claiming any kind of clairvoiance either. He is merely interpreting the the medical information on the heart monitor in a way that we all can understand clearly what that information meant.
This is how Ann does business. She not only takes things out of context, but intentionally strips them of their original context and paints her own surrounding it, much of it complete fabrication. But even so, I don't discount your argument based on the source, I challenge it based on the information itself. I doubt that you would intentionally bring such ill-presented material to this forum, and you ay well have not even been aware that it was Coulter's work, or what the source was.
Keep in mind, this case was a successful prosecution. Edwards has a pretty high 'batting average' if you will. That doesn't come from prosecuting frivolous and unwarranted cases, no matter how slick you are. You have to back cases that have real merit, where there is a real case of wrong-doing, combine them with good law practice, and present them well in court, to have that kind of record.
I asked you earlier if you are seriously charging that John Edwards intentionally prosecuted cases which were not warranted, or where he knew that there either was not an injury, or that the defendant was not liable. The Jennifer Campell case is clearly not one of those. Or do you seriously expect me to believe that every one of those jurors, the judge, the appeals judge, and everyone else involved in adjudicating this case, who witnesses many long days of detailed evidence and knew every nook of this case, were wrong, somehow brainwashed by John's incredible aura?
Remember that ultimately the true value of the case was that hospitals and insurance companies changed their ways in regards to these cases, and started paying more attention to cases where there is fetal distress. Do I have the data in front of me to say it saved X number of babies lives and X number of Palsey cases, etc.? No, but I have no doubt it has saved many families a lot of distress.
This is the kind of person you call scum? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you on that. Having had a baby who went through distress, it was taken totally seriously and we quickly went to C-Section, as opposed to what happened to Jennifer Campbell. No, I'm not trying to say it's John Edwards who saved my baby's life. But it is him and those like him who have improved the responsiveness of not as much doctors, whom I assume want to do what is best, but insurance companies and hospitals that have to front the cost for procedures and thus improved care for all of us. Should John Edwards be demonized for having gotten well rewarded for this? Should we demonize the captains of industry who bring improved products into our lives, supposedly improving our lives, and getting rich in the process? Only when they commit fraud and break the law and engage in unethical practices. As far as I can tell (although I'm open to presenting the case) John Edwards has not acted illegally, has not prosecuted frivolous/groundless lawsuits, and has not knowingly represented false claims. You say that he has, but have not pointed out a case where this was so. Even Ann Coulter was only trying to make him look like some clairvoyent fool, which even though silly, isn't a crime, even if it were what he was doing in that courtroom.
So what is it about John that makes him scum, Ustwo?