John Edwards' Junk Science

[CBL4]

John Edwards made his fortune buy using junk science to falsely accuse doctors of causing cerebral palsy. Apparently he is quite effective at getting juries to ignore facts when there are millions of dollars to be made. I have no idea whether he is/was aware of the idiocy of his claims.

These quotes are from a January 20th story by Cybercast News Service which I have never heard of but a few quick searches show that the basics are correct.

The superstar trial lawyer accomplishments of John Edwards, which allowed this former millworker to amass a personal fortune, finance his successful U.S. Senate run in 1998 and catapult himself into the 2004 race for president, may have been partially built on "junk science," according to legal and medical experts who spoke with CNSNews.com .
…
Although he was involved in other types of personal injury litigation, Edwards specialized in infant cerebral palsy and brain damage cases during his early days as a trial lawyer and with the Raleigh, N.C., firm of Edwards & Kirby.
…
Some medical studies dating back to at least the 1980s asserted that doctors could do very little to cause cerebral palsy during the birthing process. Two new studies in 2003 further undermined the scientific premise of the high profile court cases that helped Edwards become a multi-millionaire and finance his own successful campaign for the U.S. Senate.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/Archive/200401/POL20040120a.html

Here is a report of his response:

Sen. John Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat who's running for his party's presidential nomination, conceded that infant cerebral palsy usually is not the fault of the doctors who deliver the baby -- even though he argued otherwise in his days as a trial lawyer.

According to the Saturday's New York Times, "...Mr. Edwards did not dispute the contention...that few cases of cerebral palsy are caused by mishandled deliveries." Edwards did say that during his legal career, he represented only the few cases that were the exceptions to the rule.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200402/CUL20040202a.html

Here is the NIH on cerebral palsy

CBL

 

[Segnosaur]

There is also a thread on this in the science forum:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42916
(The thread there has deviated a bit into the ethics of representing clients in cases based on "junk science")

Someone on the other thread did point out that, at the time John Edwards was practicing law that the causes of cerebral palsy were not as well known as they are today.

 

[Dorian Gray]

But that doesn't support his theory very much, so he is ignoring that information.

 

[Tmy]

Its a civil trial. Juries cant "ignore facts". If they do the judge can take the case from them and rule differently.

 

[BillyTK]

I think that, as good skeptics, we should evaluate CBL4's claims in the light of the evidene that s/he provides to support them.

Claim:

John Edwards made his fortune buy using junk science to falsely accuse doctors of causing cerebral palsy.

Evidence:

The superstar trial lawyer accomplishments of John Edwards, [...] may have been partially built on "junk science," according to legal and medical experts who spoke with CNSNews.com .

Claim:

Apparently he is quite effective at getting juries to ignore facts

Evidence:

Some medical studies dating back to at least the 1980s asserted that doctors could do very little to cause cerebral palsy during the birthing process. Two new studies in 2003 further undermined the scientific premise

Claim:

I have no idea whether he is/was aware of the idiocy of his claims.

Evidence:

Sen. John Edwards [...] conceded that infant cerebral palsy usually is not the fault of the doctors who deliver the baby

There wouldn't be any partisan bias going on here would there? I imagine that if Edwards hadn't won these cases then the thread would be called, "John Edwards is a crap lawyer" or somesuch.

 

[CBL4]

Dear BillyTK,

There wouldn't be any partisan bias going on here would there? I imagine that if Edwards hadn't won these cases then the thread would be called, "John Edwards is a crap lawyer" or somesuch.

First of all, I intend to vote against Bush because I think his administration's view of civil right is clearly unconstitutional and has authorized tortured. I go back and forth on whether I believe Bush himself is a war criminal.

Until I read this article, I thought Edwards was a reasonable politician. However as a skeptic, I am appalled when lawyers, or any one else, misuse science to enrich themselves.

As far my quote about Edwards getting juries to ignored facts, here is what is said during one trial

'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. "[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"

This seems to be awfully close to what John Edward the "psychic" would say when he want to fool suckers into giving him money.

CBL

 

[Tmy]

This seems to be awfully close to what John Edward the "psychic" would say when he want to fool suckers into giving him money.

CBL

Oh puleeze. He was just being dramatic. You dont think anyone believed he was channeling the girl.

If he won the case then he had reason to win. There isnt jury nulification in civil actions.

 

[CBL4]

Someone on the other thread did point out that, at the time John Edwards was practicing law that the causes of cerebral palsy were not as well known as they are today.

This is a good point and that is why my original post included the following

Mr. Edwards did not dispute the contention...that few cases of cerebral palsy are caused by mishandled deliveries." Edwards did say that during his legal career, he represented only the few cases that were the exceptions to the rule

Perhaps Edwards really believes this. Perhaps he now realizes that he was wrong but cannot admit it to protect his clients or because it would hurt him financially or politically to admit that he was wrong. I do not know.

But the reality is that when he made the claims against the doctors, there was very little evidence to support it. But as good lawyer for his clients he distorted the facts and used emotions to get lots of money for himself. As a result, the cost of delivering my children probably doubled and everyone's insurance costs have skyrocketed.

Its a civil trial. Juries cant "ignore facts". If they do the judge can take the case from them and rule differently.

Juries can and do ignore facts all the time. The judges could take the case from them but it is so rare as to be ignorable. Emotions are much more effective than logic for convincing people. Edwards is apparently great at stirring emotions. This makes him an extremely effective lawyer and politician.

I admire his rhetoric but still despise his use of junk science.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Oh puleeze. He was just being dramatic. You dont think anyone believed he was channeling the girl.

That is an interesting point. I think, without much evidence. that half the people who go to the psychic do not really think that the person is being channeled. They simply like the emotions being stirred. Edwards the lawyer/politician and Edward the psychic both use the same "dramatics" to make people give them money. They try their best to make the audience/jurors ignore logic and feel comfortable with their inner stupidity. I detest the psychic's tactice much more but I detest them both.

Whether it was channelling or emoting, cleary the lawyer was appealling to the jury to ignore science.

If he won the case then he had reason to win

I am not sure I follow you. I think he won the case because he swayed the jury with emotion. This is a "reason" to win but not "reasoning" as in using logic.

CBL

 

[Leif Roar]

. Edwards the lawyer/politician and Edward the psychic both use the same "dramatics" to make people give them money.

Only in the same way that Uri Geller and Pen and Teller use the same tricks to make people give them money.

Edwards' "channeling" was clearly just rethoric, an attempt to impress upon the jurors the emotional side of the case - there is no intent to deceive. Edward's "channeling" is a fraud - an attempt to make the audience believe he can commune with the dead, and there is intent to deceive.

 

[Tmy]

I am not sure I follow you. I think he won the case because he swayed the jury with emotion. This is a "reason" to win but not "reasoning" as in using logic.

CBL

He won because he had facts to back up his case. IF he did not the doctors lawyers (who Im sure are very good) would have the case thrown out of the court long before a jury would even been chosen.

As far as ai know he is in good standing with the bar and did nothing unethical. Lawyers cant lie and make up facts.

Your basically mad at him for being good at his job. Edwards does not rule on the case he just presents it. Being this was a medical malpractice thing Im sure he used a # of experts.

You cant win just by rolling out a pathetic client.

 

[Leif Roar]

I am not sure I follow you. I think he won the case because he swayed the jury with emotion.

How can you make a judgement on that without reading the proceedings, or otherwise studying the cases more throughly? The material presented here is hardly enough to give any indication about the merit of the cases or in what ways Edward presented his clients' case in them.

 

[CBL4]

He won because he had facts to back up his case.

The current scientific evidence shows overwhelmingly that cerebral palsy is NOT the fault of the doctor. In the 90's the preponderance of science evidence was the same. Edwards argued against the scientific evidence. I am sure he could find facts to support his view but that does not change the fact that it was junk science.

The reality is that most juries when confronted with a poor innocent diseased/crippled/injured child will reward the parents with tons of money from the doctor or whoever else could concievably be to blame.

Please re-read the quote by Edwards when he says Jenifer is inside him. Is this logic and facts or emotion? I am sure he present pseudo-scientific ideas and someone with great credentials to back his claims but he won because he is a great lawyer who can misuse science.

Have you ever been in a jury? Have the jurors responded to emotion or facts or both? Have they argued logically or have they said something like "I know he is lying because of the look in his eyes?" My experience with trials have not been ones that a skeptic or someone who believes in reason would enjoy.

How can you make a judgement on that without reading the proceedings, or otherwise studying the cases more throughly? The material presented here is hardly enough to give any indication about the merit of the cases or in what ways Edward presented his clients' case in them.

If we were talking about scientific paper, you are absolutely correct. However, this is a fun forum. I presented links one of which is from the NIH. I have read books on the subject on junk science in the court room. I, unfortunately, have family experience with the American Injustice System. If you have facts that disagree with mine feel free to present them. So far, I am the only one to present any links, quotes or real evidence.

If you are interested about junk science and the courts, I highly recommend:
Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom

CBL

 

[CBL4]

From the NY Time that great conservative bastion:

Five weeks after the verdict, Judge Phillips ruled it "excessive" and said it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict."
...
[Edwards] sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.
...
"It seems to me that only trial lawyers are experienced at reading fetal monitor strips and are able to tell me exactly when infants became asphyxic," or deprived of oxygen, said Dr. William J. West Jr.”

If you read the article, it is clear that Edwards was simply an effective ambulance chaser.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

From the NY Time that great conservative bastion:
Edwards the ambulance chaser

Five weeks after the verdict, Judge Phillips ruled it "excessive" and said it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict."
...
[Edwards] sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.
...
"It seems to me that only trial lawyers are experienced at reading fetal monitor strips and are able to tell me exactly when infants became asphyxic," or deprived of oxygen, said Dr. William J. West Jr.”

CBL

 

[anonimouse]

I, unfortunately, have family experience with the American Injustice System.

From the tenor of your posts, it clearly has altered your POV. Is it possible your past experiences have tainted your judgement on the subject, just as one who had poor medical experiences would be similarly distrustful and resentful of doctors?

The legal system in the U.S. isn't perfect, but it's light years ahead of what passes for one in most countries.

 

[CBL4]

From the tenor of your posts, it clearly has altered your POV. Is it possible your past experiences have tainted your judgement on the subject, just as one who had poor medical experiences would be similarly distrustful and resentful of doctors?

Hardened not tainted, I think. I read most of the books about junk science before have any personal involvement (excluding jury duty) with the injustice system. I had also read about cases of McDonald's serving hot coffee and water heaters producing hot water leading to multimillion dollar verdicts.

My personal experience is with a relative who I detest. He was convicting of raping his step daughter hundreds of times. The only catch was that according to the prosecution prosecution's expert witness, the girls hymen was unbroken. He is a despicable person just not a child molestor.

The legal system in the U.S. isn't perfect, but it's light years ahead of what passes for one in most countries.

I agree it is better than most non-western countries. I cannot compare it to European countries through lack of evidence.

Once you take interest in our justice system, you will read almost daily read about gross injustice. 10% of the death row inmates in Illinois had their convictions overturned. Prosecutors charging two different men with the same crime - I have read this twice in the last year. If you do not plead guilty in my county, you will be charged with additional that will increase your sentence up to 10 times.

The case I am personally aware showed me that many (most?) police/prosecutors/judges/probation officers will do whatever they can to harrass, convict or oversentence someone they believe is guilty. Since it happened in 3 different jurisdictions, I cannot believe it is isolated.

CBL

 

[CapelDodger]

from Leif Roar:

How can you make a judgement on that without reading the proceedings, or otherwise studying the cases more throughly? The material presented here is hardly enough to give any indication about the merit of the cases or in what ways Edward presented his clients' case in them.

Absolutely. In Edwards response, we have:

"Before I ever accepted a brain-injured child case, we would spend months investigating it"

We don't know what factors were being evaluated, by Edwards's staff, the judges or the juries. We then have

The Times also noted that between 1985 and 1995, "Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. "

We have no idea of how many potential clients he had during those ten years. An average of two successful cases per year hardly suggests an ambulance-chaser. Keeping a third of the proceeds doesn't make him unique amongst US lawyers. I haven't read the links in fine detail, but do we know how many unsuccessful claims he pursued?

 

[crimresearch]

" I had also read about cases of McDonald's serving hot coffee and water heaters producing hot water leading to multimillion dollar verdicts"

Uhhmmm..you may want to reread the famous McDonald's hot coffee case...the woman who was severly burned in her crotch originally asked to have her medical bills paids...McDonald's apparently basically forced her to file a lawsuit and then they lost big time...not really a clear cut case of greedy plaintiffs or junk science lawyers there.

From Snopes:
" For example, the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot."
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

From the Trial Lawyers Association:
"The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused. "
http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMedi...room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx
----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[BillyTK]

Dear BillyTK,


First of all, I intend to vote against Bush because I think his administration's view of civil right is clearly unconstitutional and has authorized tortured. I go back and forth on whether I believe Bush himself is a war criminal.[

Well, that's good...

Until I read this article, I thought Edwards was a reasonable politician. However as a skeptic, I am appalled when lawyers, or any one else, misuse science to enrich themselves.

But this is bad, very bad; you claim that Edwards misused science, and used junk science, but you have yet to support that claim, i.e. that at the time that Edwards was involved in those cases, the "birth trauma" theory of CP had been thoroughly discredited and that Edwards was aware that it had been throughly discredited; a few articles at the time and one from last year doesn't really cut it.

As far my quote about Edwards getting juries to ignored facts, here is what is said during one trial

And here you would have to show that Edwards started his monologue with, "I'm getting something from someone who's name starts with juh...je...anyone? anyone? anyone know someone whose name starts with je?" for instance.