In this post I’ll try to walk a thin line between skepticism and cynicism with regard to the veracity of Vivian Cercy’s testimony . Some may mistake cynicism for s kepticism , so I’ll give a definition of skepticism, and then I’ll give a definition of cynicism to distinguish the two clearly. Skepticism is merely maintaining an attitude of doubt with regard to the truth of a claim or set of claims. Cynicism, on the other hand, is an inclination to believe that people are purely motivated by self-interest. So there are many reasons to be skeptical regarding the veracity of Vivian Cercy’s testimony, and these go beyond her claim to have seen Mary and Greg with a tall, skinny, blond man around 0130. These are reasons that prosecuting attorney Jim Anderson (a cynic, in my opinion) could have given a jury to get them to doubt the truth of her entire testimony. They explain why Vivian Cercy may have told Vincent Johnson that,...
"A defense investigator spoke with Von Wendel on June 11,1986, after petitioner had been convicted in the guilt phase of the trial. At that time, the investigator learned of the incident with Bo. In the same interview, Von Wendel told the investigator of an incident in which petitioner had threatened a woman with a dog. When Von Wendel intervened, petitioner left and returned with a machete." ( Thomas v. Wong , p. 14) (The way I read this is that Thomas threatened a woman who had a dog--not that Thomas had a dog and he threatened the woman with it.) I want to critically examine the prosecution's argument at trial by considering a hypothetical situation based on Von Wendel's report. Looking at the incident in which Thomas allegedly threatened the woman, let's say that Thomas had had hacked Von Wendel to death with the machete after he intervened. And let's say that the police had arrested Thomas and that he was brought to trial. Would the prosecution have u...
Comments
Post a Comment