Replies

My problem is the attempt to destroy the person personally before he’d even finished his statement

I have been an expert witness. The most important thing to the attorney is establishing my credentials, my reputation and my independence or lack thereof BEFORE I get close to the witness stand.

It is perfectly appropriate for the hearers of testimony to understand what they can about the person before he speaks. In fact, those who introduce him are going to frame him as a reliable witness when they bring him out. In our current speed of communicating information that questions the reliability of the accuser is more imperative because once his claims are made they are next to impossible to stop.

So, as an expert witness, having been in lots of courtrooms and trials...have you never seen the DEFENDANT have to answer to his own past? Answer for allegations of misbehavior in his OWN past? Deal with having to explain, with some sort of fact (excluding his own say-so), how he did not do what was alleged?

And have you ever, in that courtroom setting, seen a defendant attack an opposing expert witness?

Of course you have.

But at least they have to answer. Once the allegation is made, a defense must be brought.

In the cases I've been involved with, just saying "That didn't happen" wasn't generally compelling.

I'm not saying Cain did anything wrong. Read my posts. I SAID that folks here are attempting to tear these folks up personally before hearing what they had to say.

And I'm pretty sure I asked...what if what the accusers had to say was the truth?

Would we be interested in knowing that, or do we just not care? And we don't care because, in this case, it's our guy.