

Or, should I say, they are 'willing to distort' the truth and gives everyone a perception that they have argued within the context of the law of the day, 'twist the punctuations' to validate their argument? To be fair, they are being paid to confuse ordinary folks like you and me. And to be even fairer, with a fee they can make your day. Cool, isn’t it?

a. Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
b. The Washington Monument, is it in Washington DC?
c. Your youngest child is twenty one, how old is he?
d. Were you present when your photo was taken?
e. Were you alone, or by yourself?
f. Was you or your friend who was killed in the backstreet that evening?
g. You weren’t there at the time of the murder, is that true?
h. She had two children, both were boys. Were there any girls?
i. The suspect is medium height and had a beard, is he male or female?
J It is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.
Guess I have made my points. I am not a sour-grape, and it never crossed my mind to belittle them. As I said before, they are being paid to speak utter nonsense, at least it sounds like it to me. I mean, really, these are the same people who are pass their “Inns of Court” and henceforth could really sound contradictory, especially when what they are saying now may go completely opposite in another case.

And my dad would probably say, “One of my grandsons is a liar …errr…..loyar now.” Haizzzz…….I wished I too was a lawyer…….in my dreams, perhaps. Or, should I say I leave this unfulfilled dream to my son. How does it sound to you, little Abel?