|
|
|
Opinion vs. Conclusion Most of us, having successfully completed our investigation, are content to leave the argument to the attorneys. Arguing is what they are trained for. They take the witness's statements apart and manipulate those things which can be manipulated. They usually know absolutely nothing about any particular science. They don't sit there with you and go over the comparison protocol to make sure that you didn't miss something. Attorneys twist your words, or substitute a synonym which is easier to work with, in an attempt to minimize the impact of your testimony. Semantics, verbal trickery, is all they have going for them. You need to choose your words well and not allow substitution (“or in other words _ _ _” ). Standard College Dictionary: o--pin--ion, n. 1. A conclusion or judgement held with confidence, but falling short of positive knowledge. 2. An estimation or judgement given more or less formally by an expert or experts.
con--clu--sion, n. 4. A judgement or opinion obtained by reasoning; inference;
deduction. Q. WERE YOU ABLE TO FORM AN OPINION? (Multiple choice) A. #1 YES A. #2 AFTER EXAMINING AND COMPARING BOTH THE LATENT PRINT AND THE INKED PRINT EXEMPLAR, I WAS ABLE TO REACH A CONCLUSION. (With A. #2, the only possible next question is)
Q. AND WHAT WAS THAT CONCLUSION? Most jurors are not trained in the art of debate, or common courtroom jargon, and therefore must rely on their individual perception of the meaning of words. They are putty in the hands of a semi--skilled defense attorney. Answer #1 can lead to arguments like “Well, that's just your opinion.” “Everybody has a right to their own opinion, but that doesn't make it so!” “Don't listen to him, he has an opinion about everything.” “He's so opinionated.” The word OPINION by itself has a built--in doubt. Avoid it like the plague. If your neighborhood prosecutor use the “O” word you might suggest CONCLUSION as the word you are most comfortable with. Never give a defense attorney an easy edge — make him work for it.
Tom Jones
(Editor--—It's my
This article was printed in “THE PRINT” |