Daniel has good eyes.  See the following explanation from the intrepid
urban legend debunkers at Snopes.com:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/crane.asp

The images were funny, however.  (At the risk of encouraging such
dreadful off-topic behavior...)

John Pomeranz
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC  20036
p: 202.328.3500
f: 202-328-6918
e: jpomeranz@harmoncurran.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of
Lowenstein, Daniel
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 1:41 PM
To: Election-law Listserver
Subject: FW: Murphy's Law revisited.

-----Original Message-----
From: DANIEL TOKAJI [mailto:tokaji.1@osu.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:38 AM
To: Lowenstein, Daniel
Subject: Re: Murphy's Law revisited.

Very funny.  But I'm pretty sure that last photo is doctored.  Note that
there's a red car in the background on the first few shots, which depict
the white car being pulled out (unsuccessfully).  That red car is gone
on the next five shots, which show the white car and smaller truck being
pulled out.  Then on the last shot, showing the big truck toppling into
the water, the red car is back.  

Every once in a while, the observational skills I picked up as a
litigator come in handy. 

Daniel P. Tokaji

	Dan is correct, as a few others have pointed out to me.  The
first incident is accurate, the second is not.  Actually, I think it
would have been funnier if they had left it at the first.  There are too
many pictures leading up to the second and what happened (that is, what
is represented to have happened) is quite predictable.  Thanks, Dan.

	Daniel Lowenstein
            UCLA Law School