[MRM]

In Latin res ipsa means "the thing speaks for itself". In the legal sense res ipsa does not shift either the burden of proof or the burden of pursuasion. The doctrine allows an inference of negligence without direct evidence of a negligent act when the event is unexpected without some negigent act and proof of the negligence would be impossible to prove because of the nature of the event. The question goes to the finder of fact with a finding of negligence as a permissible inference, not a shifted burden of proof or a mandate that the jury must find a certain way.

However, I commend you and the other posters to this thread for the high level of civility and level of discourse. While some on this thread may have been thinking what a poopyhead MRM is, no one said it out loud and instead produced evidence to support their position. For the record, I deny being a poopy head.

This discusion has elevated the inquiry into Obama's background. That's what intellectual debate is all about. I don't know whether Obama is the corrupt child of the second Daly administration, but now we have some smoke that is worth looking into further. I remember no less an oracle than Tabs saying several months ago that he was reserving judgment on Obama until it was clear whether he was independent of the Chicago political machine. I think that's a fair inquiry and I look forward to making my mind up after reviewing more evidence submitted here.