FAIR Conference Highlights: DCP & Hamblin Slam B. Hodges

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wow, that sure is interesting, Tom. It really makes you wonder--is Dr. Peterson comparing himself to someone who walked on the moon (allegedly, I guess)? Or is he comparing Blair Hodges to a moonwalk hoax conspiracy theorist?

[_consiglieri]

Dr. Peterson has now posted footage of the incident here. Suffice it to say that the encounter didn't end with one man telling the other to "Go to Hell!"

Latent hostility much?

[_Fence Sitter]

Watching Dr Peterson blog reminds me why lawyers prefer their clients not take the stand in their own defense.

[_cwald]

Watching Dr Peterson blog reminds me why lawyers prefer their clients not take the stand in their own defense.

Yes. A few episodes of Law and Order might remind DCP of that.

[_sock puppet]

Watching Dr Peterson blog reminds me why lawyers prefer their clients not take the stand in their own defense.

Yeah, they can, on the stand, ruin hundreds of hours of careful preparation with a few statements trying to "improve" on the truth and their cases.

I only handle civil cases, but in defending an insured that was being sued, he came to my office an hour before the plaintiff's lawyer was to take the deposition of the insured (my client). The version the insured told me privately was completely believable and consistent, both internally and with the circumstantial evidence. Minutes later when being deposed by the plaintiff's lawyer, the insured began to 'improve' it. His story quickly became unbelievable, and the plaintiff's lawyer started circling like a shark that smells blood in the water. Then...well, the better part of discretion is that I do not tell the rest of this story, but it involved flirting with the outer edges of the ethical rules by interrupting the questioning, to try and pull the insured's bacon out of the fire he'd lit himself.

[_moksha]

Wow, that sure is interesting, Tom. It really makes you wonder--is Dr. Peterson comparing himself to someone who walked on the moon (allegedly, I guess)? Or is he comparing Blair Hodges to a moonwalk hoax conspiracy theorist?

I think he is simply saying that he wishes he had punched young Blair Hodges in the face like Buzz Aldrin did with the heckler or like Charles Bronson did with his pistol in Death Wish 1-4.

You can only push a man so far before he goes postal. Such is the nature of testosterone.

[Guest]

meh

[_consiglieri]

Yeah, they can, on the stand, ruin hundreds of hours of careful preparation with a few statements trying to "improve" on the truth and their cases.

I only handle civil cases, but in defending an insured that was being sued, he came to my office an hour before the plaintiff's lawyer was to take the deposition of the insured (my client). The version the insured told me privately was completely believable and consistent, both internally and with the circumstantial evidence. Minutes later when being deposed by the plaintiff's lawyer, the insured began to 'improve' it. His story quickly became unbelievable, and the plaintiff's lawyer started circling like a shark that smells blood in the water. Then...well, the better part of discretion is that I do not tell the rest of this story, but it involved flirting with the outer edges of the ethical rules by interrupting the questioning, to try and pull the insured's bacon out of the fire he'd lit himself.

This reminds me of a case I had a number of years back where I was defending a juvenile accused of possessing psilocybin mushrooms.

He was with a group of peers picking mushrooms in a field behind a barn. One friend was picking mushrooms and putting them into a baggie, and my client was doing the same.

Imagine their surprise when they got to their cars on the road and found the cops waiting for them.

The cops took the baggies from the two guys and put the baggies on the hood of their patrol car. In doing so, they lost track of which baggie went with which guy.

They sent both baggies to the lab and guess what happened?

Only one of the bags had psilocybin mushrooms; the other baggie had normal mushrooms.

The cops were unable to prove which one my client had possessed, and so their case was tubed.

I went over and over my client's testimony with him; which was non-incriminating in light of the fact that the prosecutor couldn't prove which of the baggies he had possessed.

Then, at trial, my client took the stand.

In response to a prosecutor's question (actually, it wasn't responsive at all), my client suddenly announces for the first time that at one point, his friend had given him the friend's baggie, and my client had held both baggies for a while before the cops came.

Needless to say, my client was convicted, and after several weeks, the print of the face-palm on my forehead eventually faded away.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Cicero]

I'm sorry I've just got to say how much I love this quote from Hamblin:

It angers me when my friend Dan is harassed and insulted by anti-Mormons. It angers me even more when it is done by purported LDS.

What the heck is a "purported LDS"?

I take it you don't recall Hamblin's Creed?

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25278&hilit=+hamblin%27s+creed

[_Jesse Pinkman]

I take it you don't recall Hamblin's Creed?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25278&hilit=+hamblin%27s+creed

Yes, but Blair is a full-on believer. He meets all four of Hamblin's criteria.