: Paul Durham writes:
:
: <<In a courtroom, an attorney would not succeed without the evidence. The
: court wouldn't buy into hearsay, conjecture, inference, or reasoning.
: "Corpus delicti" cries the jury... "bring on the evidence necessary for
: the truth".
:
: Elsewhere, well, the rules are different and truth, being so elusive,
: seems to take on a different meaning.>>
:
: Yep. This is what Johnson homed in on so well in DOT. He recognized that
: Darwinists were making arguments that played fast and loose with the
: evidence, and with issue formulation. All lawyers know that he who gets
: to define the issues wins the game. Johnson unpackaged the gobbletygook
: and exposed the ruse. (What a clever play on words, considering Michael
: Ruse has embraced a central tenet of the Johnsonian thesis!)
I was under the impression that the most successful lawyers appeal
to the emotions of the jury. And in the face of difficult evidence they
strive to obfuscate and complicate so the jury has that shadow of doubt
which ultimately benefits the lawyer's client. Call me naive.
--Glenn A. Friedrich