LOL:
Oh, 'Ruth'! Stamping your little cartoon feet, while entertaining, isn't going to help you because the facts are not on your side. Rossiter didn't have a pap indicating HPV positivity prior to meeting Alan Evans. And Rossiter never had a trace of dysplasia. And Rossiter never had a problem. She always got regular paps, so she would have known if she did. Then Alan Evans comes along and suddenly Rossiter has not one problem (high risk HPV), not two problems (low risk HPV), but three problems (BV), all after he said he got tested regularly as a dentist and hadn't been with anyone in months (both shown to be false at the trial).
We kinda like the game 'Ruth' is playing though, so let us have a go at it! We have no idea why 'Ruth' seems to have overlooked the testimony and medical records showing that Rossiter had just had a perfectly normal annual pap TWO MONTHS prior to meeting Alan Evans - not to mention all the others that came before it. 'Ruth' also overlooked the gynecologist saying that she thought Rossiter was wasting her time and money getting tested in January since everything was fine just two months prior at the annual exam. Why did Rossiter want this again, the doctor wanted to know? Two words: Alan Evans. And 'Ruth' somehow ignored another big nagging issue, which, apparently, the jury did not: Alan Evans suffered from a severe lack of medical records at trial (since he brought ZERO medical records dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit), and his attempt to get the case dismissed with the one irrelevant medical record he did bring did not help his cause.
And 'the male's' testimony' that 'Ruth' mentioned? It doesn't exist, since no one said that at trial. Alan Evans didn't say a word about not having sex for months after January 11. He didn't claim to remember too much related to the timeline, and only said that he thought there was more on top of what already had occurred on January 1 "in late January." Yes, indeed, you read that right: Alan Evans agreed with Rossiter that there was sexy time on January 1, he just disagreed as to the nature of that contact. Another glaring omission courtesy of 'Ruth' is that intercourse isn't required to transmit HPV. But why should someone like her let scientific facts get in the way? We would suggest that 'Ruth' feel shame, but given that she couldn't be bothered to get the simplest fact about HPV transmission right before acting like her sense of justice had been offended (or worse, maybe she knows how HPV works and deliberately ignored it), we don't know if that's possible.
We're not sure who the poster is, but it would be quite a coincidence if it was a random commenter with no connection to Alan Evans. And by the way, Alan's mother's name is Ruth. But here's the thing: she wasn't present for most of the trial. The only people who were present on an in-and-out basis were various members of the families. The only people who were there the entire time were the attorneys, the judge, the jury, Rossiter and Alan Evans. Occasionally members of the general public would pop in, but no one stuck around for long. So it's probably safe to say that Joe Blow didn't pass these fake gems on to our indignant pal 'Ruth.'
But if Alan Evans' mother was the one who posted this comment, there's a problem somewhere - because if she was there to "hear" the part of the testimony she's claiming to refer to, well, you can see that she's wrong across the board, and maybe should get her ears checked. And if she wasn't there in person for the stuff she's referring to, she had to have heard it secondhand, in which case, she would be wise to consider her source. Or read the appellate decision?
And if it was indeed Alan Evans' mom who posted this, and she did hear her information secondhand from someone who was there, I'm sure that "source" was only doing their best to stick up for Alan Evans in saying whatever they had to say to make him seem halfway presentable to the world. There'd be no surprise there. Of course they're desperate and they probably have to be quite the revisionist to get anyone with a conscience on their side. But just remember, everything was on the record. So if they're going to play fast and loose about facts and what happened at trial, they'd better tell the person they're talking to not to repeat the line of bullshit they told them on the internet. They don't want to look stupid... right?
"I have no idea why the jury seem[s] to have overlooked the testimony and medical records showing the lady had a bad pap [smear] two years before meeting the man ... Did anyone hear the male's testimony that he did not have sex with her until months AFTER her Jan. 11, 2005 positive HPV finding?” -- Ruth
Baby Ruth?
Oh, 'Ruth'! Stamping your little cartoon feet, while entertaining, isn't going to help you because the facts are not on your side. Rossiter didn't have a pap indicating HPV positivity prior to meeting Alan Evans. And Rossiter never had a trace of dysplasia. And Rossiter never had a problem. She always got regular paps, so she would have known if she did. Then Alan Evans comes along and suddenly Rossiter has not one problem (high risk HPV), not two problems (low risk HPV), but three problems (BV), all after he said he got tested regularly as a dentist and hadn't been with anyone in months (both shown to be false at the trial).
We kinda like the game 'Ruth' is playing though, so let us have a go at it! We have no idea why 'Ruth' seems to have overlooked the testimony and medical records showing that Rossiter had just had a perfectly normal annual pap TWO MONTHS prior to meeting Alan Evans - not to mention all the others that came before it. 'Ruth' also overlooked the gynecologist saying that she thought Rossiter was wasting her time and money getting tested in January since everything was fine just two months prior at the annual exam. Why did Rossiter want this again, the doctor wanted to know? Two words: Alan Evans. And 'Ruth' somehow ignored another big nagging issue, which, apparently, the jury did not: Alan Evans suffered from a severe lack of medical records at trial (since he brought ZERO medical records dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit), and his attempt to get the case dismissed with the one irrelevant medical record he did bring did not help his cause.And 'the male's' testimony' that 'Ruth' mentioned? It doesn't exist, since no one said that at trial. Alan Evans didn't say a word about not having sex for months after January 11. He didn't claim to remember too much related to the timeline, and only said that he thought there was more on top of what already had occurred on January 1 "in late January." Yes, indeed, you read that right: Alan Evans agreed with Rossiter that there was sexy time on January 1, he just disagreed as to the nature of that contact. Another glaring omission courtesy of 'Ruth' is that intercourse isn't required to transmit HPV. But why should someone like her let scientific facts get in the way? We would suggest that 'Ruth' feel shame, but given that she couldn't be bothered to get the simplest fact about HPV transmission right before acting like her sense of justice had been offended (or worse, maybe she knows how HPV works and deliberately ignored it), we don't know if that's possible.
We're not sure who the poster is, but it would be quite a coincidence if it was a random commenter with no connection to Alan Evans. And by the way, Alan's mother's name is Ruth. But here's the thing: she wasn't present for most of the trial. The only people who were present on an in-and-out basis were various members of the families. The only people who were there the entire time were the attorneys, the judge, the jury, Rossiter and Alan Evans. Occasionally members of the general public would pop in, but no one stuck around for long. So it's probably safe to say that Joe Blow didn't pass these fake gems on to our indignant pal 'Ruth.' But if Alan Evans' mother was the one who posted this comment, there's a problem somewhere - because if she was there to "hear" the part of the testimony she's claiming to refer to, well, you can see that she's wrong across the board, and maybe should get her ears checked. And if she wasn't there in person for the stuff she's referring to, she had to have heard it secondhand, in which case, she would be wise to consider her source. Or read the appellate decision?
And if it was indeed Alan Evans' mom who posted this, and she did hear her information secondhand from someone who was there, I'm sure that "source" was only doing their best to stick up for Alan Evans in saying whatever they had to say to make him seem halfway presentable to the world. There'd be no surprise there. Of course they're desperate and they probably have to be quite the revisionist to get anyone with a conscience on their side. But just remember, everything was on the record. So if they're going to play fast and loose about facts and what happened at trial, they'd better tell the person they're talking to not to repeat the line of bullshit they told them on the internet. They don't want to look stupid... right?