From the last time I saw this, what I understood was, the lawyer isn’t asking the witness if there’s a possibility the person in question was alive, the lawyer is trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in question was not only undeniably dead, but also impossible for the person to be alive.
Source: my memory from a random comment on the internet, pay it forward
This exchange never happened. There is no person in question. It's a joke.
Yeah that makes sense. I used to work in a position where I had to testify in court regularly about the results of independent findings the court requested. There were often lines of questioning that were about establishing details. The questions seemed silly, but it wasn't about the specific pieces of information it was about establishing that "Thing A" was absolutely true (or false) as of a specific point on a timeline. I never had any fun exchanges like this though lol.
From the last time I saw this, what I understood was, the lawyer isn’t asking the witness if there’s a possibility the person in question was alive, the lawyer is trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in question was not only undeniably dead, but also impossible for the person to be alive.
Source: my memory from a random comment on the internet, pay it forward
This exchange never happened. There is no person in question. It's a joke.
Yeah that makes sense. I used to work in a position where I had to testify in court regularly about the results of independent findings the court requested. There were often lines of questioning that were about establishing details. The questions seemed silly, but it wasn't about the specific pieces of information it was about establishing that "Thing A" was absolutely true (or false) as of a specific point on a timeline. I never had any fun exchanges like this though lol.