[Belial]

There is a neat little trick in the law where evidence admitted to prove one thing can then be used to prove something else -- even if, originally, the evidence would not be allowed for that purpose. Does that make any sense to you?

No, this doesn't make a lot of sense. Why don't you illustrate your point with a real world example of an innocent man getting in trouble for denying false charges?

[Nov3]

No, this doesn't make a lot of sense. Why don't you illustrate your point with a real world example of an innocent man getting in trouble for denying false charges?

In certain cases it makes sense but if you have never bought illegal narcotics you just say that.

[jmstein7]

So you would assert that everyone who gets convicted is guilty?

[Ichneumon]

No, this doesn't make a lot of sense. Why don't you illustrate your point with a real world example of an innocent man getting in trouble for denying false charges?

From another thread, a post by Freeper CMAC51:

Because even if Rush is totally innocent, this whole business is a serious matter. Only a fool wood start making statements when even the smallest detail in the statement can be questioned and perhaps used to challenge the credability of the overall statement.

I have been there, roped into a situation I had no idea existed. Some of my most forthright statements at the time created the most trouble because I didn't know the overall picture. The bottom line was that I had nothing to do with it and that was eventually demonstrated, but the greatest amount of trauma came from statements I made which were totally honest, totally true and totally foolish to make at the time.

Fore more examples, check out almost any book by Massad Ayoob, the self-defense expert. He often describes cases where someone on trial for a righteous self-defense shooting (including many police officers) got their genitals in a legal wringer by opening their mouth once too often.