standard procedure for a pending lawsuit, nobody wants to lay all their cards on the table.[quote]

Lee,

I do not think that my point is explained by saying that it is simply standard procedure before a lawsuit, and that neither side wants to lay their cards on the table. Obviously the sheriff and investigators know something that they are not telling us. They freely tell us they have been told conflicting stories, and then tell us just one of those stories. Obviously they know the other story which they are not telling us for some unexplainable reason.

It seems pretty obvious from the article that the unstated story is that CSX did give the film crew permission to film on CSX property. What else could conflict with the story that CSX did not give permission?

If those are the two conflicting stories, it seems apparent that the sheriff, after considering all the evidence, is unable to refute the film crew's claim of having permission.

Simply to play devil's advocate here, we could be dealing with a film crew member/leader or producer claiming as a blatant lie they had permission to work around the bridge, and CSX saying no such permission was granted. That's for the grand jury to decide, if that is the case.

Other possibilities: The earlier-cited story going around that they got permission to be near the railroad from a local CSX official, and then overstepped their permission. OR somebody from CSX gave them permission, but was in no position of authority to do so. (You know, the difference between asking the engineer for a look in the cab versus securing permission from Jacksonville HQs.)

Being preposterous just for the sake of it: They got "permission" from someone who wasn't even a CSX representative. I mean, I happen to own NS company-issue apparel; how much havoc could I cause if I misrepresented myself as an NS employee in the wrong circumstances?

Does anyone here for one minute think proper CSX officials would EVER grant permission to be on a bridge shooting a "Hollywood" film shoot without reams of paperwork, several protect persons and an official company representative on site? Given my own personal experiences with CSX, they'd demand all that even if the line had been abandoned for four years previously, if they ever even granted permission at all!

I certainly do not suspect that. There is no question in my mind that CSX declined the film crew’s request for permission to film on CSX property. It was reported that CSX has the email to prove it. But, from the start, I have suspected that there is more to the story than what the news has reported.

If CSX has proof that they said no to the request from the film company, and if the film company is lying by saying that CSX gave them permission, then the film company could not have any proof of their position. So, it seems to me that the sheriff would see this is a strong case against the film company. And yet, he seems to indicate that the case may not be strong enough to prosecute because of the uncertainty of whether or not permission was given. So this suggests that the film company has more proof than just their claim of having gotten permission.

I have suspected some version of the double permission explanation that you mention above may be the explanation for the so-called conflicting explanations. Here is a plausible explanation of the conflicting stories about whether the film company had permission:

The film crew received permission from someone from CSX to be on CSX property, but it was not from the highest authority. Later, a higher authority from CSX officially denied permission for the film crew to be on CSX property. From the point of view of CSX, the position of the higher authority overrode the position of the lower authority, and therefore the film crew had no permission. CSX claims to have proof of that permission denial.

However, if the CSX higher authority did not know that the film crew had been given permission from the lower authority, they would not have clarified to the film crew that the lower permission was rescinded. Or maybe the higher authority was aware of the permission given by the lower authority, but just assumed that the film company would realize that the higher authority’s decision overrode the decision by the lower authority.

Therefore, either way, the film crew might have just rationalized that they had permission from one part of CSX and were denied permission from another part; so they simply chose to accept authority of the part of CSX that gave them what they had asked for; that being permission to be on CSX property. Why should they worry about which CSX authority was right and which one was wrong? How could they be expected to know?

I think this is what is meant by the film company president when he responded to being asked if he had permission by saying, “It’s complicated.”

You know, that's not that insane an idea.
Recently, I was at a mainline shooting train photos, and some teens came walking along, looking to cross the bridge I was at, and one asked my permission to do so. I said, "Seriously, do I look like an employee of the RR to you?" They said I was older than them so they assumed anyone hanging out at the side of the tracks with a camera must work for the RR (with the implied added, "why else would you be here?").

I think that we've already heard the other side of the complicated story in earlier posts, and it is "some version of the double permission explanation", that is, the movie production company had permission from Wyerhauser, the owner of the property, to be on its property, but CSX already had permission from the same property owner to have their railroad on part of that same property. Does the Sheriff know for sure that CSX had exclusive permission? Or, was their permission subject to the right of the property owner to allow others to use it at CSX's risk? Or, could there be even more variations that the Sheriff isn't certain he knows about?

Are you talking about if the railroad is there via easement as opposed to outright ownership? Even if so, I think the easement is effectively akin to ownership up until the moment the line is legally abandoned, corridor preservation not withstanding.

Can you imagine some kids walking down a mainline track, in the gauge even, being ordered off by a special agent, and countering that my great, great, great grandfather granted you a non exclusive easement so I have every right to be here? I'm going to assume easements grant total control during their existence. (non lawyer opinion)

Steve

IMO, unless they can produce correspondence between their company and CSXT that specifically granted them permission to be on CSXT right of way, and which would also spell out liability, specific hours, costs, protection to be provided, etc., they don't have crap.

This old baloney of "I asked a guy wearing a CSX hat and he said it would be OK" shouldn't fly.

What if the film company has an email giving them permission? Or what if they cited a specific employee of CSX who gave them permission, and that has been verified by the sheriff interviewing that employee? They must have something. They must have said they received permission, otherwise why would the sheriff refer to a conflicting story?

If they said they received permission, they are going to be asked whom they received it from. If they could not answer that question, do you think the sheriff would regard their claim as a conflicting story? Claiming to have received permission with no way to verify it has no credibility whatsoever.

The Atlanta newspaper has published an article about how this incident has impacted the film industry. The full article is behind their paywall, but here is a link to a four-paragraph excerpt:
Atlanta Journal Constitution: Death of Atlanta woman exposes safety weaknesses on the movie set (April 28, 2014)

It depends how the easement, lease, or other agreement is written and possibly revised, and how any applicable laws might affect those words. You will occasionally find Special Instructions in Employees' Timetables to cover such rare and outlandish situations. According to an earlier post, if the filming company had used a boat to transport the bed, they could give 7 days notice and the railroad would be required to let them cross the right of way at that bridge.

If they have said email, or any kind of paper trail, that's a different animal. I have to believe that if they had that, we wouldn't be discussing this; it would have been "case closed" on the day it happened.

You realize that film companies have access to a special kind of paper trail: it's called film.
When there is a production, there are usually people running around with smaller cameras shooting the production itself, for potential future use in promos, "Making of" movies, etc. So for them, a recognizable face on HD video giving verbal permission, equals "on paper".

Possibly a permission giver who did not realize he was filmed, possibly by a cameraman who caught him in an unrelated shot. Or possibly they have nothing and this is a bluff. They sure aren't saying what they have. In civil actions, everybody's gotta give up all the evidence they have (and thus, tip their strategy)... but in criminal actions in many jurisdictions, a defendant is entitled to hide evidence and spring it at trial.

I'm just saying that anybody who has ever dealt with a large railroad in projects like this knows it takes months and causes the deaths of hundreds of trees to be done properly.

Not to mention the involvement up front of lawyers from both sides.

Bottom line is that the sheriff determined that they had insufficient probable cause to a violation of law occurred. So now it's up to the County Attorney to determine whether the facts support bringing charges before a Grand Jury.

Having been involved with criminal investigations, the County Attorney will have their own investigators review the sheriff's investigation and possibly perform their own investigation. The reports will be reviewed and the attorney assigned to review the case will determine whether or not to prosecute. If they determine that there was no criminal intent or that there is some uncertainty, they have the discretion to decline prosecution even if the letter of the law was violated. Whether the violation was intentional or "harmless" error is a significant consideration.

Alan,

Roughly how much time would you expect to pass before the County Attorney announces his decision? Are we talking a couple weeks or a few months?