|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
Okay. So let's say that it's a word game with the intention of misleading the
jury. Google still needs to call him on it and expose him to the jury. The
jury needs to understand that he is trying to pull the wool over their eyes with
word games. I would think that the jury wouldn't appreciate that.
And still, as an "expert" witness, he should be ashamed of himself.
Maybe he could word it to the jury this way, "I'm doing a play on words
here because I really like the money I'm being paid to lie to you... But
because I don't want to get into trouble with the judge, I'm not technically
lying, but you're still being deceived by what I'm saying to you." Any
chance of this kind of honesty? Sigh... Probably not.
I realize that there is a legal definition, but honesty != dishonesty. If
Oracle were actually in the courtroom to get their perceived "issue"
resolved, I can't see why they feel they need to resort to paying someone to be
dishonest (legally defined or no). This just poisons the jury's pitcher of
water (and yes, it is sad to me that Mitch even made that glass of water
comment, because he is the one who tainted the waters).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|