It is disheartening to see things drag out for so long. Look at the case of James Holmes - Aurora Colorado shooting - three years to go to trial. That's what good lawyers do - drag it out as long as possible.
maybe they were really building the case and investigating other players further. the article says life in prison is on the table so the legwork needs to be done first. i don't think it is as simple as this report implies totally agree on James Holmes. he should be dead or convicted 2 years ago. i'm only familiar with the little i read and a video so excuse me if i'm missing some big things that are common knowledge, but it just leaves me with more questions. the steel was fireproofed and covered with ceiling. there is talk about surface rust being ignored, but it doesn't say that the location with inspected rusting was the location that failed. i'm sure there must have been other rust out there that could have met that criteria. and if the commissioner thinks the report was markedly inferior... how does that buy the owner time? who did the owner distribute that report to and was it something the owner volunteered to do or was it required.... and if required was there a review .... i'm going to go out on a limb and say that the scope of that inspection was very limited to popping ceiling tiles and looking around with a flashlight and what if the locations they saw they documented well but they didn't see the failure location or other locations identified during the forensic followup. if they had seen this connection and had called it out for repair, would that have prevented an accident to the satisfaction of the commissioner? or would that just have prevented THIS accident. The problem is the ROOF. The beam failure is the SYMPTOM. And what about the design failures? and all the years of not addressing the roof?.... is the right answer to throw the last engineer who touches the job in jail? or is the right answer to look for ways to make people fix their roofs? what's the standard of care for criminality... is it proving that the structure will stand? or is NOT encountering problems which will compromise the structure? i'm sure there is a lot more to this, but i don't like some of the witch trial feel to what i'm reading. the commisioner's comparison to a mechanic with a cracked engine is offensive oversimplification. there is a lot of steel up there and inspection requires lots of viewing angles. Ceiling and ductwork makes it darn near impossible and fireproofing really shuts down the last hope you have of making headway. not to mention all happening in an occupied commercial structure. i'm not defending whatever those inspectors did... it wouldn't surprise me if they were doomed from the second they sent their proposal. But i am confident that finding this failed connection would have required a very comprehensive scope that well exceeds any layperson metaphors about routine daily events. btw, i find the whole legal aspect to this fascinating though. there must be a much different culture to engineering north of the border and i wonder how the roles and responsibilities play out. to be honest, i'm not even sure what this "commissioner" job is apart from somebody with authority who should be speaking with more precision, especially since he is describing a crime. There is no room for metaphors in justice. The authority shouldn't say a person who embezzles is just like a guy who shows up and robs a bank with a gun or vice-versa. ironic-note-to-file... i just used a metaphor to do just that about the commissioner's statement, but i'm not the 'authority' and i'm not describing a crime. enough of that rambling long post...
For those who weren't here, or don't remember, there were extensive discussions on this site, and links to the investigations, when this happened. A search should find those threads.
"It is disheartening to see things drag out for so long. Look at the case of James Holmes - Aurora Colorado shooting - three years to go to trial. That's what good lawyers do - drag it out as long as possible"
I know what you mean. It's like good engineering design; there's no reason for a building to take more than a week to design, after all, the only thing needed is some drawings that a computer can do.
