Fri Jul 27 16:33:44 2001
I guess that as a legal professional, I have been particularly trained to doubt and attack "sworn testimony".
As a rule of evidence, no "sworn testimony" is admissable unless it has been challenged by cross-examination by the accused party. Did that happen in this instance? NO!
If "sworn testimony" meant that the testifier was unequivocally telling the truth, the above mentioned rule of evidence would not exist.
The sworn testimony that you are relying upon is no more reliable testimony than any of the other unsworn recordations that you offer as evidence in this matter, or for that matter, the many other unsworn testimonies to the contrary affect which you choose to ignore.
A "hearing" is, by definition, not the same as a "trial". Had this progressed to a war crimes charge, a trial would have followed that charge. NONE of this "sworn testimony" would have been admissable as evidence.