[PatrickHenry]

Reminds me of the problem with the case against OJ. There was so much evidence against him that it just had to be a police fraud.

[longshadow]

"On cross-examination, school board attorney Patrick Gillen set out to debunk the relevancy of the questions because they weren't asked at board functions and the board members were her friends."

I'm a little fuzzy on court procedure, but I thought if one side takes exception to the "relevance" of a line of questioning, they make an OBJECTION, and the judge rules for, or against the objection. Since when do lawyers challenged the relevance of the opposing side's questions with more questions DURING CROSS-X?

After the debacle the other day where they unsuccessfully objected to a witness reading the letter they personally wrote to the newspaper, because it was "hearsay," I'm beginning to wonder about the competence of the Dover School Board's legal counsel.