In one trial, the lawyer suing Smithfield Foods told jurors 30% of Smithfield Foods’ hogs are exported while the waste stays here. But, in fact, 30% of the pork raised in North Carolina is not exported.
Here’s another fact twist: Michael Kaeske told a jury that the neighborhood where his client, the plaintiff, lived – beside Joey Carter’s farm – had been there before the farm was built. It was a backdoor way to tell the jury the plaintiff had lived there first. The facts? The neighborhood had been there first but the plaintiff didn’t move into the neighborhood until after Joey Carter built his farm.
Michael Kaeske also claimed that Smithfield Foods never did a study to determine what ‘Super Soils’ would cost. But Smithfield funded a study by North Carolina State University to determine if Super Soils were cost-effective. The research showed they weren’t. But Kaeske didn’t mention that.
That’s just three examples. There were more. And they all led to one question: How does twisting facts in a Raleigh courtroom lead to justice?