LogFAQs > #964750650

CoolCly posted...

this is the kind of really weird comment that shows how biased you are btw

like, its the most normal thing in the world to rehearse the incredibly specific phrasing you need to give in your statement so you don't start rambling, and say something slightly vague or that can be interpreted differently from your prior statements, and to prepare for all the questions you are going to be asked

your commentary attempts to give off this impression that you have good amount of knowledge of how court proceedings work and what the "norms" are, so you can point out when something is "weird", but if you really had any familiarity with these processes, that comment would never cross your mind. you only say it because its just another snipe at her, not because it makes any sense. studying for testimony the most normal thing imaginable for someone in her position to do

I don't know that I agree with most of this.

Witness prep is a thing. They give you an outline, with questions they will ask and key things they want to touch upon, and oftentimes they'll give you questions you'll probably be asked on cross. Rambling, ultimately, isn't a big deal even remotely. In fact, you're encouraged not to just recite answers because it makes you seem more unnatural (I would assume doubly so as witness that is known for acting). Because you're there to respond truthfully to your best recollection in your own words. If you miss a detail, the lawyer is there to pick up the slack and ensure you remember to say it. We saw it constantly with Johnny Depp, for instance, who was fine rambling on and on for instance. And when he missed key parts, his lawyers were there to bring him back to hit the key details.

The word "rehearse" should not be in any lexicon when you are preparing a witness for trial. They should not have any rehearsed stories because they need to come across as authentic recollections of the events. This would be more akin to coaching, if you're encouraging this, which is unethical. And you shouldn't need to study wording from prior statements because if you're telling the truth, you should know your prior statement aligns with whatever you're saying in your testimony.

Obviously this is far more different if it's a witness that, say, has to look up a bunch of numbers, and dates, and details from contracts to keep those more straight. But Amber isn't that kind of witness. She's just supposed to give an authentic answer about what she's lived through.

I'd like to know what she would possibly need to study for nightly for these past three weeks, which "source" claims she is doing, if not trying to keep stories straight that are not actually her own lived ones.

But what do I know. I only routinely deal with witness outlines for depositions.