Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (49117)	6/5/2002 9:52:54 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Yes. A classic way of impeaching a witness is to confront them with their version of an event when they were first interviewed, compared to their testimony months later at a trial. It seems always easy to find significant discrepancies, and the implication is that they have deliberately altered their testimony. The question remains as to which version in more believable. The first memory was contemporaneous, but could have been affected by shock or the like. The second memory is more thought-out, but more distant from the event. A living example of all of this is the testimony in the Skakel trial, the Martha Moxley case. I think Skakel will get another OJ verdict, even though I imagine he really did do it.