... you holding or expressing your opinion, Russell. And I won't rehash the evidence here, but will simply say that it wasn't just Mel's word against Dean's, it was Mel's against Dean's and David's and that of the confidential third member, all of whom contradicted what Mel had to say (Dean independently of the other two).

And my "opinion" didn't carry the day, by a long shot. If it had, we'd have expelled three members, not just one. In fact, a majority of the board resisted my "opinion" for a long time and was very reluctant to take action against Mel. A large part of the reason for my departure from the position of claims director was our disagreement on this very issue. Ultimately, the board reached the decision it did with respect to Mel because the evidence against him was compelling.

You may not agree in this case, which is certainly your prerogative. But I will say this, in more than 20 years of practicing criminal law, as both a prosecutor and defense counsel, I saw many people sent to jail or prison on less evidence than there was against Mel (lots of one-on-one, "he said, she said" or "he said, he said" cases in which the jury had to decide which of the two to believe, with no other evidence either way).

----- jim o\-S