That case and that book - "Copy"

[dumbledore11214]

> bboyminn:
> 
> If you read the transcripts, as many of you seem to have
> done, you know that the WB's attorney's are continually trying 
> to force the word 'copy' into questions in any and all 
> contexts in the desperate hope of getting positive 
> acknowledgment so they can turn around and say, see he said
> he copied. 
> 
> It is a pretty untransparent and obvious maneuver. 
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>


Alla:

Well, yes to support one's argument that defendants copied, it is 
helpful to try to make defendant's witnesses to admit that they 
actually...copied.

I mean, is there something wrong with this maneuver, as long as it 
seeks to elicit something that plaintiffs allege in good faith 
defendants did?

If I want to argue that plaintiff's doctor treated patient 
excessively, you bet I will ask questions with the words "excessive 
treatment" in there. 

If witness did not copy or not treated excessively, they will answer 
that way and no amount of questions will elicit something that they 
do not want to say.

Actually no scratch that, sometimes good attorney IS able to elicit 
from witness the information that witness is not willing to share.

But no amount of forceful cross-examination will make witness say 
something that witness did not DO.

Alla