[Amore]

People do things like that. You should read real transcripts of actual witnesses on the stand under cross examination when a experienced lawyer strips assumptions from a "absolutely sure" testimony.

Now who is it who’s dealing in faulty assumptions? You’re assuming that because a lawyer tears apart a witness’ testimony, the witness was wrong in the first place. In fact, it is just as likely -- more likely -- that the witness was right all along and the lawyer has simply twisted the witness' testimony into knots. It's really more of a parlor trick than a search for the truth.

[William Terrell]

In fact, it is just as likely -- more likely -- that the witness was right all along and the lawyer has simply twisted the witness' testimony into knots.

You can tell the difference. There's alway the nest of shysters, but most of 'em are pretty decent and do their jobs as best they can. Even though they are all too damn expensive.