In her post below Denyse is frustrated that the Darwinists are still refusing to admit the obvious about the Guillermo Gonzalez case — that the tenure process was a sham, the reasons used to justify denial of tenure were a pretext, and the decision to deny tenure had been reached before he even applied.
I understand Denyse’s frustration. As a litigator, getting to the facts of a matter is integral to my job, and it never ceases to amaze me the extent to which people will lie or deny the truth, even when they are under oath and even when everyone in the room (except apparently them) knows what’s going on.
When I was a young lawyer this was especially irritating. I will never forget a particular deposition of an expert witness. I had him dead to rights. I tripped him up on a key point. He knew it; I knew it; the other side’s lawyer knew it; everyone knew it. But I went round and round with him asking him question after question, and he would never fess up to the ultimate question.
After the deposition an older lawyer who was mentoring me said “Barry, I know you were frustrated in there, and I’ve felt that same frustration many times, but let me tell you a story that might help. During the Nuremburg trials the prosecution team had lawyers from England, the United States and Russia. When a defendant would take the stand, the English lawyer would examine him in the formal English tradition, and in the same way the American lawyer would ask penetrating questions to try to tease out the truth. But every time the Russian lawyer would just stand up and say ‘Admit you’re a Nazi pig!’ and then sit down. Of course, no one ever admitted they were a Nazi pig. The point is, real life is not Perry Mason. No one ever breaks down on the stand and confesses. The best you can do is make your points and move on and hope the jury sees what is going on.”
Whether the story about the Nuremburg trials is true is beside the point. We can never force witnesses on the stand or materialists on this blog to admit the truth, even if the truth is utterly obvious to even the most casual observer. The best we can do is put the truth out there. Then the jury (in my cases) or the public (in this blog) can make up their own mind.
And you know what else I’ve learned? There is actually a great benefit when a witness denies an obvious truth. If the jury catches them doing that just once, they lose all credibility and nothing they say from that point on makes any difference to the case. I advise my clients that if there is a damaging fact, just fess up and move on. Don’t make the other side drag it out of you; that just exacerbates the problem by highlighting it. In the long run it is always better to admit the damaging fact than to deny it and lose credibility.
In the case of the materialist commenters on this blog, I hope they do go on denying the obvious. Their credibility slips a little more with every denial.