If truth helps one side, it probably hurts the other side. Well, not literally; there may be factual statements like “the crime happened on Tuesday” that neither side objects to. But the ultimate goal is, for one side to get the other side punished, for the other side to avoid punishment.
Dealing with “I don’t know”. Two broad strategies are outlined: [...] “Convince the witness that while he/she ‘may not know’ or they are ‘not sure’, there is a plausible explanation/definition/standard that they will (inevititably) accept as true.”
Not sure what this means in practice, but my first impression is quite bad. Saying “I don’t know” in proper context may be the right thing to do.
If truth helps one side, it probably hurts the other side. Well, not literally; there may be factual statements like “the crime happened on Tuesday” that neither side objects to. But the ultimate goal is, for one side to get the other side punished, for the other side to avoid punishment.
Not sure what this means in practice, but my first impression is quite bad. Saying “I don’t know” in proper context may be the right thing to do.
“I don’t know” can be a accurate. I think the advice is intended against people playing dumb, like Bill Clinton’s “depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” or this witness denying knowledge of what a photocopier is. I know I’ve pulled this bullshit on myself at least once.