well, he has not featured on here for a while, what with him going off and having all them tests and that to show how stressed he is, and how, just like any other, normal, rational person, his instinct when spooked is to shoot the living sh!t out of a door, and if it is a bathroom one, well then so much the better. he is back, of course, to his natural habitat of a courtroom, and things have got interesting.
a dear friend of mine, sadly no longer with us, once said to me "if you always tell the truth then you never have to remember what you said". i have, through thick and thin, stuck with this, the principal gaining me as much as it has cost. a version on the go of this at the moment would be, it would seem, "if you always tell the truth then you never have to go to America to make a video that you hope with show what you want it to show, but when it is a different truth you want to tell then the video making an appearance makes a certain truth seem somewhat unstable and a whole interesting legal mess of a statement is made as a consequence".
yes, i am referring to that video, and no the video is not here. there is a screen from it just below, but no i am not putting the video up here. although the approach of the lawyers to this video is, to me, exciting.
Oscar's lawyers have made a somewhat unusual statement about this video, a statement few seem to be picking up on the wording of. if you cannot be bothered to click on the link there, the lawyers state that the TV company has obtained the video "illegally". they then go on, however, to state that the TV company has "broken an agreement" about broadcasting it whilst the trial was on. hmn. so, they have the video illegally, yet the "copyright owner", ie the "commissioner" of the video, ie Oscar, has entered into an agreement with them as to when they could broadcast it?
so, if someone steals your car, they have taken it illegally, yeah? would you enter into an agreement with them about using that car, would you?
those who have seen the video suggest that it indicates Stumpie is a lot better at running about, shooting and carrying bodies than the testimony given in court - which didn't involve this class video - would indicate. i am assuming that if this is the case, the Australian TV channel simply opted to show the video as it relates to a different truth from the one presented in court. what could be the issue with them showing the video if the matters it relates to have all been presented in court, i wonder?
|picture Channel 7 and, presumably, the commissioner of the video|
one of the best elements of all this is the indignation and moral outrage being expressed in some corners about Stumpie's lawyers having the temerity and nerve to prevent shades of different versions of truth in their quest to prove the lack of guilt their client has. the astonishing levels of innocence, and belief in the idea that people work for good as a given, is at least a reassuring element of life in this century.
for some strange reason there are people out there that do not believe the lawyers (generously) in the employ of Stumpie should be waving around different shades of the truth in an attempt to convince, if not the world, a politically motivated and appointed black lady that Stumpie did not know who he was killing behind the bathroom door, which makes the fact that Stumpie killed someone OK and he should be set free to wander around, doing all that running stuff he seems to like. the lawyers, they seem to believe, should just stop the trial and tell the judge, for it is she, that actually it might be the case that the evidence suggests that perhaps all is not really as OK as it could be. yeah, because lawyers are supposed to act as judges themselves, look you see, and everyone is perfectly entitled to expect that people should throw away their careers and income because of the morality of someone unrelated to the case.
if you are accused of something, and you are not of a particular mind to simply admit it, then you might wish to consider hiring a lawyer which will be committed to, and indeed uphold, your variations of the shades of the truth. if you wish to be represented by someone in pursuit of your freedom by means of them simply following the general trend of the mood of not at all impartial viewers, then you would be best represented by a tabloid newspaper editor, or a f****** hairdresser.
suing a TV station for both obtaining a video illegally and for breaking an agreement about when they could show the same video is an incredible, admirable level of belief and commitment to the variations of truth. sometimes - not often, but sometimes - i regret not pursuing a career in law.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!