|
Authored by: Charles888 on Monday, December 24 2012 @ 10:25 AM EST |
... who is not willing to say anything but the truth under
oath, there are at least ten who would say whatever BS is
necessary. If the lawyers need some BS to be testified to in
court, you will not be the one they will call upon in this
case.
But, you are right. The lawyers are just as guilty of
twisting the truth. The difference is that they are expected
to do so. The system as it is setup gives a much higher
weight to what the "expert" is saying, and this is specially
dangerous in a patent case where the jury has no clue about
what is testified about. They have to trust what the expert
says.
I am beginning to believe that in these technical cases we
need court-appointed expert testimony, which are expert not
pre-selected and prepared to give the testimony that either
side need. In a situation where the jury is so far away from
understanding the fundamentals of a case, our system is not
set up to "find the truth".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Which is why - Authored by: Wol on Monday, December 24 2012 @ 04:31 PM EST
- Which is why - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 26 2012 @ 06:49 AM EST
|
Authored by: albert on Monday, December 24 2012 @ 12:25 PM EST |
Is it not true that most lawyers have a stable of experts whom they are likely
to call on? This would seem to be the case in technical fields. Wouldn't this
system tend to the bias the expert just a little? Not to lie, but to use (or
not use) the facts to their advantage. A little math, a lot of hand-waving,
and, viola![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|