From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

This post was rejected as containing nothing new

..........................................................................................


"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjvaojFtkl4U2@mid.individual.net...

On 29/09/2025 10:56 am, billy bookcase wrote:

All testimony has to be relevant to the case in hand. The Courts know that.
And you know that.

The colour of the socks of a person observed by the witness? What he'd had for
breakfast? How he trevalled to the scene?

All of which "could be relevant", yes.

So the witness should volunteer that and everything else he can think of without any
bidding?

Or the witness should answer questions about these matters only when and if asked?

[Hint: As for all questions, it's the latter!]>

More or less the same thing as The Todal. The essence of it is the "whole truth" is
decided by the cross-examiner, who carries on with his questions (and any necessary
clarification of their meaning) until he has gained the information he wants, concluded
that the witness doesn't have that information or concluded (and invites the court /
tribunal) that the witness is either lying or otherwise failing to answer the question
for some reason.

So what you're saying is that despite the fact that the killer in four previous murder cases wore red and yellow striped socks and travelled on the
84 bus, the fact that neither counsel nor the defendant* was actually aware of those cases, and so didn't ask questions of the witness about what colour
socks the person in the dock was wearing or what bus they were travelling
on, means that those facts have no part of "the whole truth" ?

Despite the fact that the defendant "was indeed wearing red and yellow striped socks and was travelling on the 84 bus/

* A fact which could be picked up on by almost anyone once the facts emerged
in the witness box.

Is that what you're saying ?


snippage

So rather than "the whole truth" being a figment of everyone's imagination, >> except yours, what in fact you're suggesting' is that by only asking questions
to which they already know the answer, its somehow the job of counsel
to prevent "the whole truth" from coming out.

Where do you get this "it's somehow the job of" from ?

All I'm saying is that under certain circumstances, that is an *inevitable consequence*
of only asking closed questions


bb

............................................................................................

Which is quite simply nonsense

I can only assume it's been rejected so as to allow JNugent's new best friend, Todal, the owner of the group, to have another go at jumping to JNugent's defence; having already made a complete fool of himself in his last attempt
in ULM .

Where he suggested in all seriousness that counsel limit their questions to closed yes or no answers....

So that the witness doesn't trip themselves up.

Which when cross examining *the opposition witness*, is actually *the whole point of the exercise.

While why would any counsel choose as their *own witness* somebody
who was likely to trip themselves up in the witness box ?
More especially when under cross examination.

Complete and utter rubbish, IOW.

Whereas here in UNNM with his second attempt, he can lard his reply with his customary insults and innuendoes.

Clearly those few months, spent as an assistant Outdoor Clerk
30 odd years ago must have gone to someone's head.

It's just a shame they weren't paying more attention.


bb


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation

On 30 Sep 2025 at 16:23:28 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

This post was rejected as containing nothing new

............................................................................ ..............

"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjvaojFtkl4U2@mid.individual.net...

On 29/09/2025 10:56 am, billy bookcase wrote:

All testimony has to be relevant to the case in hand. The Courts know that.
And you know that.

The colour of the socks of a person observed by the witness? What he'd had for
breakfast? How he trevalled to the scene?

All of which "could be relevant", yes.

So the witness should volunteer that and everything else he can think of
without any
bidding?

Or the witness should answer questions about these matters only when and if >> asked?

[Hint: As for all questions, it's the latter!]>

More or less the same thing as The Todal. The essence of it is the "whole
truth" is
decided by the cross-examiner, who carries on with his questions (and any
necessary
clarification of their meaning) until he has gained the information he wants,
concluded
that the witness doesn't have that information or concluded (and invites the >> court /
tribunal) that the witness is either lying or otherwise failing to answer the
question
for some reason.

So what you're saying is that despite the fact that the killer in four previous
murder cases wore red and yellow striped socks and travelled on the
84 bus, the fact that neither counsel nor the defendant* was actually aware of
those cases, and so didn't ask questions of the witness about what colour socks the person in the dock was wearing or what bus they were travelling
on, means that those facts have no part of "the whole truth" ?

Despite the fact that the defendant "was indeed wearing red and yellow striped
socks and was travelling on the 84 bus/

* A fact which could be picked up on by almost anyone once the facts emerged in the witness box.

Is that what you're saying ?

snippage

So rather than "the whole truth" being a figment of everyone's imagination, >>> except yours, what in fact you're suggesting' is that by only asking questions
to which they already know the answer, its somehow the job of counsel
to prevent "the whole truth" from coming out.

Where do you get this "it's somehow the job of" from ?

All I'm saying is that under certain circumstances, that is an *inevitable consequence*
of only asking closed questions

bb

............................................................................ ................

Which is quite simply nonsense

I can only assume it's been rejected so as to allow JNugent's new best friend,
Todal, the owner of the group, to have another go at jumping to JNugent's defence; having already made a complete fool of himself in his last attempt in ULM .

Where he suggested in all seriousness that counsel limit their questions to closed yes or no answers....

So that the witness doesn't trip themselves up.

Which when cross examining *the opposition witness*, is actually *the whole point of the exercise.

While why would any counsel choose as their *own witness* somebody
who was likely to trip themselves up in the witness box ?
More especially when under cross examination.

Complete and utter rubbish, IOW.

Whereas here in UNNM with his second attempt, he can lard his reply with his customary insults and innuendoes.

Clearly those few months, spent as an assistant Outdoor Clerk
30 odd years ago must have gone to someone's head.

It's just a shame they weren't paying more attention.

bb

I think you need to consider the difference between examination in chief by
the counsel who called the witness and cross examination by their opponent. Things may then become clearer. Possibly The Todal could help you?
--

Roger Hayter
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation


"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:4880176376.88dfb261@uninhabited.net...

On 30 Sep 2025 at 16:23:28 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

This post was rejected as containing nothing new

............................................................................ >> ..............


"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjvaojFtkl4U2@mid.individual.net...

On 29/09/2025 10:56 am, billy bookcase wrote:

All testimony has to be relevant to the case in hand. The Courts know that.
And you know that.

The colour of the socks of a person observed by the witness? What he'd had for
breakfast? How he trevalled to the scene?

All of which "could be relevant", yes.

So the witness should volunteer that and everything else he can think of >>> without any
bidding?

Or the witness should answer questions about these matters only when and if >>> asked?

[Hint: As for all questions, it's the latter!]>

More or less the same thing as The Todal. The essence of it is the "whole >>> truth" is
decided by the cross-examiner, who carries on with his questions (and any >>> necessary
clarification of their meaning) until he has gained the information he wants,
concluded
that the witness doesn't have that information or concluded (and invites the
court /
tribunal) that the witness is either lying or otherwise failing to answer the
question
for some reason.

So what you're saying is that despite the fact that the killer in four previous
murder cases wore red and yellow striped socks and travelled on the
84 bus, the fact that neither counsel nor the defendant* was actually aware of
those cases, and so didn't ask questions of the witness about what colour
socks the person in the dock was wearing or what bus they were travelling
on, means that those facts have no part of "the whole truth" ?

Despite the fact that the defendant "was indeed wearing red and yellow striped
socks and was travelling on the 84 bus/

* A fact which could be picked up on by almost anyone once the facts emerged >> in the witness box.

Is that what you're saying ?


snippage

So rather than "the whole truth" being a figment of everyone's imagination,
except yours, what in fact you're suggesting' is that by only asking questions
to which they already know the answer, its somehow the job of counsel
to prevent "the whole truth" from coming out.

Where do you get this "it's somehow the job of" from ?

All I'm saying is that under certain circumstances, that is an *inevitable >> consequence*
of only asking closed questions


bb

............................................................................ >> ................

Which is quite simply nonsense

I can only assume it's been rejected so as to allow JNugent's new best friend,
Todal, the owner of the group, to have another go at jumping to JNugent's
defence; having already made a complete fool of himself in his last attempt >> in ULM .

Where he suggested in all seriousness that counsel limit their questions to >> closed yes or no answers....

So that the witness doesn't trip themselves up.

Which when cross examining *the opposition witness*, is actually *the whole >> point of the exercise.

While why would any counsel choose as their *own witness* somebody
who was likely to trip themselves up in the witness box ?
More especially when under cross examination.

Complete and utter rubbish, IOW.

Whereas here in UNNM with his second attempt, he can lard his reply with his >> customary insults and innuendoes.

Clearly those few months, spent as an assistant Outdoor Clerk
30 odd years ago must have gone to someone's head.

It's just a shame they weren't paying more attention.


bb

I think you need to consider the difference between examination in chief by the counsel who called the witness

I am well aware of the difference. As you would already know, had you read
my reply to the Todal, in ULM

"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message news:10bdvv6$30okm$1@dont-email.me...

quote:

Or in the case of examination in chief, are you seriously suggesting that counsel may refrain from asking questions of his own witness because he suspects that his witness is "unreliable" and that he may be "remembering wrongly". Or in simple terms, that he may be lying ?

:unquote

and cross examination by their opponent. Things may then become clearer.

Things are already perfectly clear, to me at least; thank you very much.

Possibly The Todal could help you?

Much more of that, and your whitelisting is possibly in peril.

Although maybe you really are serious; and Norman Wells was right all along.



bb



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2