LAW: WHO SEZ? | nationalsalvation.net
In relation to Anglo-Saxon Law I mentioned recently how different a person is who was raised in a community. In a community a person who testified to anything was taking a life-time risk, and the higher his rank in society the greater the risk he was taking. Everything depended on your WORD in those times.
I was just watching a program on the History Channel that said that more and more scientists are agreeing that global warming is man's fault and the Intellectuals need to take over the world to save us. In a traditional community, "more and more scientists are agreeing" would be instant death to any documentary.
When our established religion no longer allows any questioning of a very shaky thesis, they ALWAYS jump to the "growing consensus among scientists'" bit which is the same as the Modern Thought bit, which is the same as the cocktail party "They found out that..."
In a community someone made a general declaration that a whole field of neutral experts had taken a particular point of view, it was a major undertaking. A trusted figure in the community who misused his trust once would be remembered for it. The second time he did it he would be totally discredited. If SANE people trusted to you to blatantly misspeak in such a way ONCE, your credibility would be gone forever. The second time you would not be believed. You would be laughed at the third time you tried it.
All my life "Modern Thought," "a growing consensus of scientists," and "They found out that ..." has almost always been WRONG. Respectable conservatives protect commentators from any discussion of past errors and treat the latest nonsense with greater respect than they the last load of manure they delivered.
Contrast this Advanced and Scientific approach to the old Saxon Law. A psychiatrist who is known to have seen all crime as society's fault and has helped free murderers before states, for the hundredth time, that this particular psychopath is really good and was molested as a child and if you pay enough money to psychiatrists he can be cured.
His earlier testimony - if you have a good attorney - is only used to demonstrate that "He has expertise and experience in this kind of case."
Actually the defendant has such experience, too, but to my knowledge no attorney has called the defendant as an expert witness
But the only reason you would NOT call the defendant as an expert witness in his own case is that juries have a modicum of sense left. They still pay SOME attention to the old Anglo-Saxon "Who sez?"
But not much.