Lawyer: “Was that the same nose you broke as a child?”
Witness: “I only have one, you know.”
****************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?”
Witness: “By death.”
Lawyer: “And by whose death was it terminated?”
****************************************************************************************
Accused, Defending His Own Case: “Did you get a good look at my face when I took your purse?”
The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to ten years in jail.
****************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “What is your date of birth?”
Witness: “July 15th.”
Lawyer: “What year?”
Witness: “Every year.”
****************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Can you tell us what was stolen from your house?”
Witness: “There was a rifle that belonged to my father that was stolen from the hall closet.”
Lawyer: “Can you identify the rifle?”
Witness: “Yes. There was something written on the side of it.”
Lawyer: “And what did the writing say?”
Witness: “‘ Winchester ‘!”
****************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?”
Witness: “Gucci sweats and Reeboks.”
*****************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Can you describe what the person who attacked you looked like?”
Witness: “No. He was wearing a mask.”
Lawyer: “What was he wearing under the mask?”
Witness: “Er…his face.”
*****************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “This myasthenia gravis — does it affect your memory at all?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Lawyer: “And in what ways does it affect your memory?”
Witness: “I forget.”
Lawyer: “You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you’ve forgotten?”
*****************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “How old is your son, the one living with you?”
Witness: “Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.”
Lawyer: “How long has he lived with you?”
Witness: “Forty-five years.”
*****************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke that morning?”
Witness: “He said, ‘Where am I, Cathy?'”
Lawyer: “And why did that upset you?”
Witness: “My name is Susan.”
******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Sir, what is your IQ?”
Witness: “Well, I can see pretty well, I think.”
******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Did you blow your horn or anything?”
Witness: “After the accident?”
Lawyer: “Before the accident.”
Witness: “Sure, I played for ten years. I even went to school for it.”
*****************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Trooper, when you stopped the defendant, were your red and blue lights flashing?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Lawyer: “Did the defendant say anything when she got out of her car?”
Witness: “Yes, sir.”
Lawyer: “What did she say?”
Witness: “‘What disco am I at?'”
*****************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “Did you check for blood pressure?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “Did you check for breathing?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “How can you be so sure, Doctor?”
Witness: “Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.”
Lawyer: “But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?”
Witness: “Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.”
******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?”
******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “And you check your radar unit frequently?”
Officer: “Yes, I do.”
Lawyer: “And was your radar unit functioning correctly at the time you had the plaintiff on radar?”
Officer: “Yes, it was malfunctioning correctly.”
******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “What happened then?”
Witness: “He told me, he says, ‘I have to kill you because you can identify me.'”
Lawyer: “Did he kill you?”
Witness: “No.”
******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Now sir, I’m sure you are an intelligent and honest man–”
Witness: “Thank you. If I weren’t under oath, I’d return the compliment.”
******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “You were there until the time you left, is that true?”
Lawyer: “So you were gone until you returned?”
******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “The youngest son, the 20 year old, how old is he?”
******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Were you alone or by yourself?”
******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “How long have you been a French Canadian?”
******************************************************************************************
Witness: “He was about medium height and had a beard.”
Lawyer: “Was this a male or a female?”
******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Mr. Slatery, you went on a rather elaborate honeymoon, didn’t you?”
Witness: “I went to Europe , sir.”
Lawyer: “And you took your new wife?”
*******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “I show you Exhibit 3 and ask you if you recognize that picture.”
Witness: “That’s me.”
Lawyer: “Were you present when that picture was taken?”
*******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Were you present in court this morning when you were sworn in?”
*******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Do you know how far pregnant you are now?”
Witness: “I’ll be three months on November 8.”
Lawyer: “Apparently, then, the date of conception was August 8?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Lawyer: “What were you doing at that time?”
*******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “How many times have you committed suicide?”
Witness: “Four times.”
*******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Do you have any children or anything of that kind?”
Lawyer: “She had three children, right?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Lawyer: “How many were boys?”
Witness: “None.”
Lawyer: “Were there girls?”
*******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “You don’t know what it was, and you didn’t know what it looked like, but can you describe it?”
*******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “You say that the stairs went down to the basement?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Lawyer: “And these stairs, did they go up also?”
*******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Have you lived in this town all your life?”
Witness: “Not yet.”
*******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: (realizing he was on the verge of asking a stupid question) “Your Honor, I’d like to strike the next question.”
*******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Do you recall approximately the time that you examined the body of Mr. Eddington at the Rose Chapel?”
Witness: “It was in the evening. The autopsy started about 8:30pm.”
Lawyer: “And Mr. Eddington was dead at the time, is that correct?”
*******************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “What is your brother-in-law’s name?”
Witness: “Borofkin.”
Lawyer: “What’s his first name?”
Witness: “I can’t remember.”
Lawyer: “He’s been your brother-in-law for years, and you can’t remember his first name?”
Witness: “No. I tell you, I’m too excited.” (rising and pointing to his brother-in-law) “Nathan, for heaven’s sake, tell them your first name!”
********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Did you ever stay all night with this man in New York ?”
Witness: “I refuse to answer that question.
Lawyer: “Did you ever stay all night with this man in Chicago ?”
Witness: “I refuse to answer that question.
Lawyer: “Did you ever stay all night with this man in Miami ?”
Witness: “No.”
*********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods?”
Witness: “No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region.”
*********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “What is your marital status?”
Witness: “Fair.”
*********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Are you married?”
Witness: “No, I’m divorced.”
Lawyer: “And what did your husband do before you divorced him?”
Witness: “A lot of things I didn’t know about.”
*********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “How did you happen to go to Dr. Cherney?”
Witness: “Well, a gal down the road had had several of her children by Dr. Cherney and said he was really good.”
*********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?”
Witness: “All my autopsies have been performed on dead people.”
*********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Were you acquainted with the deceased?”
Witness: “Yes sir.”
Lawyer: “Before or after he died?”
*********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Mrs. Jones, is your appearance this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?”
Witness: “No. This is how I dress when I go to work.”
*********************************************************************************************
The Court: “Now, as we begin, I must ask you to banish all present information and prejudice from your minds, if you have any.”
*********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Did he pick the dog up by the ears?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “What was he doing with the dog’s ears?”
Witness: “Picking them up in the air.”
Lawyer: “Where was the dog at this time?”
Witness: “Attached to the ears.”
*********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?”
Other Lawyer: “Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.”
*********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “And lastly, Gary , all your responses must be oral. Ok? What school do you go to?”
Witness: “Oral.”
Lawyer: “How old are you?”
Witness: “Oral.”
**********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “What is your relationship with the plaintiff?”
Witness: “She is my daughter.”
Lawyer: “Was she your daughter on February 13, 1979?”
**********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Now, you have investigated other murders, have you not, where there was a victim?”
**********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Now, doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, in most cases he just passes quietly away and doesn’t know anything about it until the next morning?”
**********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “And what did he do then?”
Witness: “He came home, and next morning he was dead.”
Lawyer: “So when he woke up the next morning he was dead?”
**********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Did you tell your lawyer that your husband had offered you indignities?”
Witness: “He didn’t offer me nothing. He just said I could have the furniture.”
***********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “So, after the anesthesia, when you came out of it, what did you observe with respect to your scalp?”
Witness: “I didn’t see my scalp the whole time I was in the hospital.”
Lawyer: “It was covered?”
Witness: “Yes, bandaged.”
Lawyer: “Then, later on…what did you see?”
Witness: “I had a skin graft. My whole buttocks and leg were removed and put on top of my head.”
***********************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Could you see him from where you were standing?”
Witness: “I could see his head.”
Lawyer: “And where was his head?”
Witness: “Just above his shoulders.”
************************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Do you drink when you’re on duty?”
Witness: “I don’t drink when I’m on duty, unless I come on duty drunk.”
************************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial?”
Witness: “The victim lived.”
************************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “The truth of the matter is that you were not an unbiased, objective witness, isn’t it? You too were shot in the fracas.”
Witness: “No, sir. I was shot midway between the fracas and the naval.”
************************************************************************************************
Lawyer: “Officer, what led you to believe the defendant was under the influence?”
Witness: “Because he was argumentary, and he couldn’t pronunciate his words.”
Monthly Archives: October 2006
The Problem The British Seems to Be Having
The British suddenly seems to be fixated on the veil that is obligatory for all Muslim women to wear. The British seems to find the veil a barrier to communication and a barrier to forming relations within the community. Some have gone even as far as to say that the veil is worn to be different and that those who wear it are not projecting the idea of welcoming inclusion into the society. I say what a load of CRAP!!
The whole propaganda seems to have been started to divert the attention from the real problem on the hands of the Britain’s i.e. the fact that the war on Iraq is not working and its time to go home and admit failure. The Bush and the Blaire administration is constantly under fire and scrutiny over their actions in Iraq and how Iraq has turned out into a violent country where there is no respite from the day to day bombings and other such violent activities.
The Bush administration I believe has achieved its target by dividing up the whole Iraqi society such that they are not a community as a whole anymore.. They are separate communities that are fighting amongst themselves and thus missing the whole picture. Which is the fact that they are giving up the expected results wanted by all non-muslims–> disintegration of the Muslim community.
Muslims should be concerned about what is happening and focus on the bigger picture rather than getting involved in a brawl with the British or the Americans about issues of the religion that have been clearly outlined in the Holy Quruan and Ahadith. The Muslim community at this time should strive to unite as one and fight against these forces who are effectively trying to create strife and ignorance in the Muslim Community.
Lion’s Lady by Julie Garwood
This weekend found me sitting on bed and enjoying a feisty romance story by Julie Garwood i.e. The Lion’s Lady.
The story starts with a group of red Indians where the “holy man” goes up to the mountains to receive a dream or revelation. During that time, the daughter and grandson of the chief of the tribe had disappeared and everyone had given up hopes of ever finding them alive.
A day or two after the “holy man” receives the “revelation” the daughter and grandson returns to the tribe with Christina Bennett in her arms, a baby at that stage with a fierce possessiveness for her mama and her brother. Her actual mother had rescued the daughter and grandson from near death and died herself a few days later by an attack from a wild bear. Christina’s mother leaves behind a diary of her journey and why she had traveled so far away from London to get to where she was. Its up to Christina to avenge for the injustice that was borne on her mother by her husband.
Thus a grown up and a beautiful and desirable lady, Christina returns to the London society taking it up by a storm where every eligible man for miles is intrigued by the aura of mystery that surrounds this woman. Lyon, Marquis of Lyonwood finds her as irresistible and thus begins an enjoyable journey of wits, passion, love and romance that would take your breathe away.
I loved the book, as I usually do with most of Julie Garwood’s books. Makes quite an enjoyable read.
Were They or Were They NOT on a BREAK?
Anyone who has ever being a fan of the multi-award winning series Friends that was aired from 1994-2004 would know what I am talking about. The “big fight” between Ross and Rachel which caused the rift between them as boyfriend and girlfriend would be remembered by everyone who has watched Friends.
From the beginning it is portrayed that Ross (David Schwimmer) has always had feelings for Rachel Greene (Jeniffer Aniston). Although Ross has never been able to confess the way he feels to Rachel, Rachel finds out about it at end of the first season.
Thus in the second season Ross and Rachel get together as a couple. After a couple of seasons, their comes this rift between the two of them when Rachel starts working at Ralph Laurens and there comes this guy who helps Rachel gets the job into the picture. Driven by jealousy and by the fact that they both had not been able to spend some quality time together as a couple, Ross starts complaining and Rachel gets unbearably angry with him for all sorts of things and asks for a BREAK away from each other.
Knowing Ross’s character as everyone does, he is devastated and goes to some bar where this “hot” chick that Ross, Joey and Chandler has been raving about turns onto him and they sleep together. Now the Time for the BIG QUESTION. Was what Ross did wrong in terms of whether they were on a break from each other or NOT?? I am not talking about the Love factor and all that bullshit, just for arguments sake. can Rachel throw that at Ross’s face saying that he cheated on her? I just cant seem to understand it..
I got to thinking about this because a couple of days during the breakfast me, my sis and a couple of friends got to talking about whether each one present considered whether they had been on a break or not, and surprisingly the opinion was divided. Those who begged to differ on the fact that they were not on a break gave the reason that “Of Ross did love Rachel as much he wouldn’t have or shouldn’t have” which is not the point. I for one find the notion a bit annoying. Because, they were definitely on a break. Apart from the love factor and all that mushy stuff where you are supposed to mourn for like a gazillion years after a breakup, I think Ross didn’t do anything wrong by sleeping with someone else. Opinions will tend to differ. So, what do you think?
Cheapest Laptop EVER!!
Massachusetts Institute of Technology has detailed specification for a $100 laptop which is going to be the “source” of open source education for poor countries. It is considered to be an education project rather than a laptop project.
The proposed design would consist of a 500 MHz processor, 1 GB RAM, an innovational dual-mode display that can be used in full-color mode.The system would be powered by conventional current, batteries or by a windup attached to the side of the notebooks.
Linux would be the Operating System used in the system together with some applications that would be developed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers.
Connectivity issues regarding the laptop is going to be solved by Wi-Fi and cell phone enabled and the laptop will also include 4 USB ports.
If this highly ambitious venture of MIT becomes true, there is going to be a huge shift on the way computer systems are perceived by the general public.
Work of Art 