I'm not disputing whether or not he was visibly drunk, but I wonder what the people who didn't come forward to be interviewed thought. I mean, if you were a regular at Shannon's and you thought the suit was BS, and it wasn't obvious that Hancock was plastered, wouldn't you come forward to tell the police that? Great catch. I agree that this is a major setback for the plaintiffs, but the whole "who came forward to be interviewed" part puts a huge asterisk on the whole deal. There actually was a couple that observed Hancock in Shannons that night. They were interviewed by the STL media the day after the accident and they said he was visibly drunk. However, it makes no difference whether anyone thought he was visibly drunk. Missouri does not even permit such a suit if the drinker is 21 or older. The only exception is if if the liquor consumption is "involuntary" and that is what the suit is claiming. I still think that is a very weak argument. Extremely weak. Unless they tied him up, put a funnel in his mouth and poured vodka down his throat, it was in no way "involuntary."