|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
I got the impression that it was the judge asking the
questions at the relevant point in VD. (This practice saves
time: the court and both parties to the suit are all
interested in the answers to such general queries. If a
particular party is interested in more detail they can ask
follow-up questions.) So, the fact that the question was not
ideal, and could be interpreted tortuously enough that the
answer would not be obviously misleading, is irrelevant.
This judge will never admit to asking an imperfect question,
and will not give this possibly-misleading answer the
benefit of the doubt.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
OK, let's do a correct analogy then:
"Do you have any children?"
"Yes, I have an 11 year old daughter."
If the respondent in fact had, say, four
children aged 4 through 15, wouldn't this
at least be a mighty strange answer,
formally truthful as it may be?
Twisting words to avoid inconvenient parts
of the truth is at least precariously close
to lying, so close that I have a hard time
seeing any real difference to an outright lie
in this particular context: voir dire, where
the purpose of the questions is very obviously
to get *any* possible problems out in the open.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
