|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 05 2013 @ 01:24 AM EST |
Aah, the truth maybe seeping through...
The New Yorker newspick is filling in more gaps...
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/03/11/130311fa_fact_macfarquhar?currentP
age=all
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, March 05 2013 @ 05:11 PM EST |
.
Don't presume she told them anything they didn't know. They
are capable of googling on their own. There are also other
sources for the same thing.
A witness can decline to answer. If they are threatened,
consult a lawyer and take the fifth. Why the fifth?
Because the witness has been threatened with something.
Their lawyer should then get them immunity. Then they have
to answer. If not, better --they do not have to answer.
They should listen, answer the question, only the question,
and volunteer nothing. The less one says and the fewer
times one says it, the better to minimize inconsistencies
real or perceived by either or both parties.
Investigators talk to get at someone by direct information,
or to pin the witness down. They very often know more than
the witness is willing to give them. They even know what
the witness knows; they just need the witness to say it.
Witnesses can't pick and choose when and if to testify. It
is a bad position to be in. With major crimes witnesses
run, balk and sometimes die.
Of course, when the crime is "closet downloading" of
academic journals for mankind to the extent of 35 years ...
Let's hope he got it loose and it helps a few continents
against the gouging copyright regimes. We may learn more if
any more women publish.
As ever, anything you say can be used against you,--even
this!
~webster~
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|