-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Has Kal Korff the famous Bigfoot, Roswell & Meier debunker flipped his lid?
Free episodes:
ondafritz
Skilled Investigator
David Biedny said:A .
My sweet girlfriend is watching these right now, y'all should see the expression on her face.
I don't believe what I am seeing.
Who is this guy? Look, I know that you guys talk about him from time to time but I really had no idea who he was. Is he serious? Or is this a cool comedy?
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
David Biedny said:A .
My sweet girlfriend is watching these right now, y'all should see the expression on her face.
First vid didn't load. Second vid.... OMG omg omg omg... omg. 3rd vid, omg, Royce will win I bet.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
ondafritz said:
Kal Korff is Captain Crunch.
Here's a search where you can read about him.
kal korff - Google Search
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
Ok, first vid loaded finally. Um, I lasted 12 seconds and about barfed. Love the cliche' president opening.
Richard Bailey
Paranormal Novice
Captained Korff says that David, Gene and Mac will be exposed.
Guys, put you close back on.
Guys, put you close back on.
Richard Bailey said:Captained Korff says that David, Gene and Mac will be exposed.
Guys, put you close back on.
We are all shaking in our boots. Can barely breathe. If you can believe that, you can believe anything.
I see he put a whole slew of stuff up about Gene, David, Paul, and Mac. His favored target seems to be Paul at the moment. What really gave me a chuckle though, was his video 'proof' of the Mycova whatever-chick. He is talking to an off camera female voice that never enters the frame . . . solid proof that there is a chick there, and that it's who he says she is.
Wow.
It's like a train wreck. I don't want to look. I don't want to comment. I want to just leave it alone and walk away . . .
. . . but every time I start walking away ANOTHER train comes crashing in on the wreckage of the last one.
-DBTrek
Wow.
It's like a train wreck. I don't want to look. I don't want to comment. I want to just leave it alone and walk away . . .
. . . but every time I start walking away ANOTHER train comes crashing in on the wreckage of the last one.
-DBTrek
DBTrek said:I see he put a whole slew of stuff up about Gene, David, Paul, and Mac. His favored target seems to be Paul at the moment. What really gave me a chuckle though, was his video 'proof' of the Mycova whatever-chick. He is talking to an off camera female voice that never enters the frame . . . solid proof that there is a chick there, and that it's who he says she is.
Wow.
It's like a train wreck. I don't want to look. I don't want to comment. I want to just leave it alone and walk away . . .
. . . but every time I start walking away ANOTHER train comes crashing in on the wreckage of the last one.
-DBTrek
And maybe he's a ventriloquist, so he can deliver a second voice, in a phony accent, without the need for anyone actually being there.
Of course, he also watches this forum, so now we've given him more ammunition with which to make a fool of himself:
Gene Steinberg said:And maybe he's a ventriloquist, so he can deliver a second voice, in a phony accent, without the need for anyone actually being there.
Of course, he also watches this forum, so now we've given him more ammunition with which to make a fool of himself:
"I'm out here near the secret headquarters of the Super Secret Service. That cow in the background is actually an agent, he's been running surveillance on this cow mutilation phenomenon for ten years. My camera man today is Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Some small minded people have suggested that Ehud Olmert is not my camera man, isn't that right Ehud?"
"That's right, General Korff"
"Right. And I suppose agent Moopants hasn't been running surveillance on cow mutilations in this very field for ten years either, right Ehud?"
"That's what they say on there forums, general"
"Right. Well I guess they're eating their words now, since we can all clearly see the cow doing surveillance, and we can hear your voice, Prime Minister. In yo' face Steinberg and Biedny! You have ten lunar months to retract your lies about me, or I will expose you for the frauds you are. You will both be watched very closely. That is all".
-DBTrek
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
Who would have thought that the (relatively) even-tempered Canadian would be the one to take the gloves off and enter the Steel Cage with . . . uh . . . whatever Korff calls himself these days.
Someone should do a documentary on the back and forth between you guys.
-DBTrek
Someone should do a documentary on the back and forth between you guys.
-DBTrek
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
DBTrek said:
Easy for me, I pull for Royce. Or actually truth and reason, which Royce seems to have a handle on more so than KK.
David Biedny
Paranormal Adept
Royce is a decent, good guy, who is tired of all of the BS and noise in the realm of UFO study. I consider meeting him to be one of the good things that's come out of my involvement with this show, and would be happy to be on his side in a fight anytime. I pretty much agree with every entry in his Halls of Shame/Fame, he calls them as he sees them, and that takes guts to do in a public venue. He doesn't hide behind an online pseudonym and he takes risks expressing his opinions, two things I absolutely relate to and understand.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
Royce has a disclaimer which states that there is a blend of humor through out his site. I think some people over look this and take it too seriously. It has a comedic edge to it, like Carlin and Hicks.
I'm always interested in hearing what incorrect info. Royce has spread. Name anything that he is lying about or mis representing. So far, I come up short. And when there is something unconfirmed, he states, "reportedly". No prob with that. He isn't passing off rumor as fact.
I'm always interested in hearing what incorrect info. Royce has spread. Name anything that he is lying about or mis representing. So far, I come up short. And when there is something unconfirmed, he states, "reportedly". No prob with that. He isn't passing off rumor as fact.
Paranormal Packrat said:
Maybe I misunderstand his humor. It's possible, tone of voice is difficult to determine in the written word. My point was simply that RM gets a lot of hype for being some sort of straight-talking cowboy that has the "rare" ability to find kooks in a kooky field. In practice though, he has the same petty vendettas, the same immaturity, and performs the same rumor-mongering as his targets. C'mon, a page of "I heard So-and-So once said . . ." is not watch-dogging.
Is he as bad as Korff? No. I don't think Royce is delusional.
Is he a stand-up, straight talking, 'just-the-facts' watchdog of the UFO community? No, he's an opinionated amatuer like the most of the egos in field. He put time and research into uncovering the work of obvious frauds, and discovered they were [gasp] obvious frauds.
If I *had* to pick a side (and I don't), I suppose I'd throw in with Royce. The difference is I wouldn't be functioning under the illusion that my side was blameless in the internet-sniping circus, or above using cheap tactics.
Dang dude, you dug waaaaaaaay back in time for that one.
-DBTrek
Roger Knights
Skilled Investigator
[align=center][size=x-large]Key-Witness Kal: Part 1[/size]
[size=large]Roger Knights[/size][/align]
Part 1A:
The word “player” can mean either of two things:
1. A person on a team’s roster;
2. A participant in a game.
Which of those meanings is intended is determined from context:
1. If a person says, “I was a player for the Chicago Bears,” we understand that he was on the team’s roster, even if he never played in a game (e.g., if he functioned as a backup quarterback or place-kicker).
2. If a person says, “I was a key player in the Super Bowl,” and “my plays sank the opposition,” we understand him to be saying that he was not just on the roster and physically present in the stadium, but that he played in the game.
It would be an equivocation for a man to say, “I was a key player in the Super Bowl,” when the facts were that he was only a benchwarmer. I.e., he’d have misled his listeners if he used such phraseology. There’d be no excuse for it—he couldn’t claim not to know how they’d interpret his words.
=============
Part 1B:
What does all this have to do with the price of peas in Peru? Well, on his website Kal Korff claimed, as pointed out in December 2006 by Paul Kimball, to have been “a key, expert witness in the O.J. Simpson murder trial civil lawsuit.” This is analogous to claiming to have been a player in a Super Bowl. (A thread with links to PK’s posts on this matter can be found here: http://kkkorff.blogspot.com/.)
Furthermore, on Rob McConnell’s XZone talk-show (of the night of Dec. 28, 2006, at about the 3:20 mark), Korff stated.
* The listener would tend to infer that the “it” that “was accepted by the court” was Korff’s testimony, since the words preceding the “it” are “I was the guy that sank it and.” That is the closest referent, and that is the one that listeners take to be the one being referred to. Listeners wouldn’t interpret the “it” as meaning the argument that the plaintiffs lawyers put forth that Groden’s testimony was not credible. That was the implication of the previous sentence.
(Note: For a fee, a CD or podcast of this broadcast, and other Xzone broadcasts in which Kal appeared, can be obtained from http://www.iradionow.com/Show.aspx?showcode=xzon)
But when Paul Kimball looked up the list of witnesses in that trial in Court TV’s online site, he discovered that Kal wasn’t on it. He thereupon charged that Korff—a “hard-hitting,” “holding-accountable,” “taking-no-prisoners,” “tru-sading” (his terms) stone-thrower—was secretly a sinner too.
(Gee, who’d-a-thunk it?
)
===============
Part 2A:
Let’s switch back to our football player. Suppose someone charged him with a similar deception, by pointing out that he wasn’t listed as a player in the Super Bowl. And let’s suppose he responded as follows:
The above is a staggering combination of quibbling and chutzpah. It shamelessly pretends that context (see below) plays no role in defining the intended meaning of a word. In this case, the context was his claiming to have been a player “in” a Super Bowl, especially claiming to have been a “key” player, which implies that he actually took the field, not that he was merely on the roster. That implication in turn supplied the context within which “my plays” implied that they were ones he personally executed, not that he merely suggested from the sidelines.
=================
Part 2B:
Back to our Peruvian peas. In defending himself against Kimball’s charge, Korff (on the XZone show of the night of February 15, 2007) conceded that he didn’t actually testify as a witness in the trial, but went on to offer a quibbling defense like that of the bench-warmer’s above. Here’s what he said:
Kal’s defense ignores the role of context in determining which of the various meanings of “witness” was conveyed by his original statement. The Random House Dictionary gives five definitions of the noun form of “witness.” (Though the last two are mostly irrelevant here, I’ve included them for completeness.) The “examples” below are ones I’ve provided:
1. A person who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator, or eyewitness.
Example: “I was a witness to the Simpson murder.”
2. A person or thing that affords evidence.
Example: “I am an expert witness on photo-manipulation.” This is a second-hand “expert witness” who CAN testify about matters within his area of expertise.
3. A person who gives testimony, as in a court of law.
Example: “I was a witness in the OJ Simpson case.” This is a “court-case witness”: one who testified under oath in a legal proceeding.
4. A person who signs a document attesting to the genuineness of its execution.
Example: “I was a witness to her will.”
5. Testimony or evidence: to bear witness to her suffering.
The audience is guided by the context to infer which of the meanings of “witness” is the one intended. For instance, in example #4, “I was a witness to her will,” the context of “her will” and the conjunction “to” after “witness” implies that he personally signed his name to her will. It would be a dissimulation to use those words if he were a “witness” only in the sense of definition #1. I.e., if he had merely observed the signing of her will. But this is the sort of thing that Kal has done.
The conjunction chosen indicates the meaning intended. That is, you can be a witness to something, on something, or in something. For instance, to indicate you were a witness in a legal proceeding, you use the word “in”, along with the name of the proceeding. There is no justification for using that conjunction in connection with the other two sorts of witnessing. It would be misleading to use the words “in a lawsuit” if you had been only a non-testifying witness to or on something.
A witness in [a] lawsuit isn’t any old witness—i.e., one who merely has knowledge that he can testify to or about (definition #1 or #2). A witness “in a lawsuit” is one who has knowledge that he actually did testify to (definition #3). That’s its meaning, to any native-English speaker. There’s no way for a person to have been a witness in a lawsuit and not to have testified.
To sum up: You can be a witness INSIDE a trial, or one OUTSIDE a trial. If you use the word “IN” in conjunction with “witness” and the name of a trial, you are telling your audience you were a witness INSIDE a trial. “In” doesn’t mean merely peripherally involved in a trial, although perhaps “in” has that meaning in Czech. “Peripherally involved in” means OUTSIDE the trial; and if you were OUTSIDE the trial, you can’t say you were “in” it.
Korff’s other words and statements also led his audience to believe that he actually testified at the O.J. Simpson trial, namely:
1. Being “a star witness in [a] lawsuit effort” is the very opposite of being a non-testifying, behind-the-scenes, consultant-type “expert witness,” which is what he actually was. A “star” witness is one whose light has shone forth brightly for all to see, not one who has been hidden under a bushel. The Random House Dictionary gives, as its first definition for the adjectival form of “star,” the following: “celebrated, prominent, or distinguished; pre-eminent; a star basketball player; a star reporter.” No one who sat out a game would say he starred in it. (Barring Kal Korff.)
2. He said, “I was the guy that sank it” [Groden’s testimony], his “I” implying a direct involvement—i.e., a personal appearance in court.
3. Korff stated (in his comment on Paul Kimball’s December 29 blog-post), “I provided the expert testimony to tear down and tear apart Groden's testimony.” The Random House Dictionary gives two definitions of “testimony” that are relevant here:
In addition to that, definition #1 is what an audience will be led to infer when a courtroom context is provided—especially when there’s other context supporting that inference, such as a claim that “I was a key witness in [a] lawsuit,” and a mention of tearing down “Groden’s testimony,” which was courtroom testimony. Korff’s equivocal use of words once again misled his readers.
Notice also his lawyerly phraseology, which gave him an escape hatch if he were accused of being misleading:
• He didn’t say “lawsuit,” but “lawsuit effort.”
• He didn’t say, “I testified,” but “I provided the testimony.”
• He didn’t say “key witness,” but “key, expert witness.”
Only a lawyer’s ears would prick up at that unnecessary verbiage, because only a lawyer is trained to examine phraseology with a microscope, looking for hidden qualifications and wiggle room. 99% of Kal’s listeners would pass it off as his normal verbosity and miss his sleight of hand. They’d think, for instance, that “lawsuit effort” meant “lawsuit,” and that “key, expert witness” meant “a key expert witness,” not “an expert-witness consultant who was a key in the plaintiff-lawyers’ effort to win a lawsuit.”
These weasel words to allowed him to “act innocent” later if it became necessary. (Answers.com defines weasel word as: “An equivocal word used to deprive a statement of its force or to evade a direct commitment.”)
Kimball unfortunately failed to deconstruct Korff’s linguistic shell-game. I.e., he didn’t point out Korff’s misuse of context to convey a misleading impression. He merely insisted that “witness” meant a witness in a courtroom, period. Thus he had no counter to Korff’s sophistical insistence that “witness” did NOT necessarily mean a courtroom witness. This is the counter I’ve provided here: “I was a witness in a lawsuit” or “I was a star witness” can mean only a courtroom witness—i.e., one who testified.
=========
Part 3: Summing up for the Prosecution
===============
Part 4: Potential “Judges”
You will get 1,700,000 hits if you type “expert witness directories” into Goggle, or if you click on the link below:
expert witness directories - Google Search
There are scores of such directories. They each list the names of numerous experts who are prepared to testify as expert witness. Under each name is a description of the expert’s qualifications. These entries are cobbled together by the directories’ copy editors out of raw material provided by the experts themselves. (Presumably in response to a questionnaire.)
A listee’s qualifications sometimes include an indication of how often he has testified, and occasionally the notable cases in which he did so. Lawyers prefer to hire an expert who has actually taken the stand, especially in “big” cases, because that is a clue that he sounds credible and can “take the heat.” Listees who claim such experience gain an edge, because they are more impressive, IOW.
I’ll eat a bug if any of the directories’ editors and readers wouldn’t consider themselves misled if a listee stated that he had been a witness in a certain trial, when he had actually only been consulted by the lawyers. (It would matter not a whit if he had been an uncalled on-call witness.) Such a listee would, I am sure, be severely reprimanded, and perhaps delisted, with the unanimous backing of the other listees.
This can be put to the test by polling the top dozen directories in Google’s search-results list about their opinion on my claim above. Their e-mail addresses could be obtained from their sites.
Similar e-mails could be sent to legal advice columnists, many of whom can be found online by plucking appropriate items from a Google search for “(legal advice OR law) (column OR columnist)”. Here’s a link with that search built in:
(legal advice OR law) (column OR columnist) - Google Search
And the faculty of law schools, or law-journal editors could be polled. I suggest PK start with his alma mater.
+++++++++++++
Note (for the sake of completeness): You can also say you were a witness for something, such as “I was a witness for the prosecution.” This implies a legal proceeding too, when a trial-related term like “prosecution” is used.
Another PS (added August 25): “at” can be a synonym for “in,” when used in a phrase like, “I was a witness at the OJ Simpson civil lawsuit.”
Part 2 of this article, when I get around to it, will examine the non-central issues in this dispute.
[size=large]Roger Knights[/size][/align]
Part 1A:
The word “player” can mean either of two things:
1. A person on a team’s roster;
2. A participant in a game.
Which of those meanings is intended is determined from context:
1. If a person says, “I was a player for the Chicago Bears,” we understand that he was on the team’s roster, even if he never played in a game (e.g., if he functioned as a backup quarterback or place-kicker).
2. If a person says, “I was a key player in the Super Bowl,” and “my plays sank the opposition,” we understand him to be saying that he was not just on the roster and physically present in the stadium, but that he played in the game.
It would be an equivocation for a man to say, “I was a key player in the Super Bowl,” when the facts were that he was only a benchwarmer. I.e., he’d have misled his listeners if he used such phraseology. There’d be no excuse for it—he couldn’t claim not to know how they’d interpret his words.
=============
Part 1B:
What does all this have to do with the price of peas in Peru? Well, on his website Kal Korff claimed, as pointed out in December 2006 by Paul Kimball, to have been “a key, expert witness in the O.J. Simpson murder trial civil lawsuit.” This is analogous to claiming to have been a player in a Super Bowl. (A thread with links to PK’s posts on this matter can be found here: http://kkkorff.blogspot.com/.)
Furthermore, on Rob McConnell’s XZone talk-show (of the night of Dec. 28, 2006, at about the 3:20 mark), Korff stated.
* The listener would tend to infer that the “it” that “was accepted by the court” was Korff’s testimony, since the words preceding the “it” are “I was the guy that sank it and.” That is the closest referent, and that is the one that listeners take to be the one being referred to. Listeners wouldn’t interpret the “it” as meaning the argument that the plaintiffs lawyers put forth that Groden’s testimony was not credible. That was the implication of the previous sentence.
(Note: For a fee, a CD or podcast of this broadcast, and other Xzone broadcasts in which Kal appeared, can be obtained from http://www.iradionow.com/Show.aspx?showcode=xzon)
But when Paul Kimball looked up the list of witnesses in that trial in Court TV’s online site, he discovered that Kal wasn’t on it. He thereupon charged that Korff—a “hard-hitting,” “holding-accountable,” “taking-no-prisoners,” “tru-sading” (his terms) stone-thrower—was secretly a sinner too.
(Gee, who’d-a-thunk it?
) ===============
Part 2A:
Let’s switch back to our football player. Suppose someone charged him with a similar deception, by pointing out that he wasn’t listed as a player in the Super Bowl. And let’s suppose he responded as follows:
The above is a staggering combination of quibbling and chutzpah. It shamelessly pretends that context (see below) plays no role in defining the intended meaning of a word. In this case, the context was his claiming to have been a player “in” a Super Bowl, especially claiming to have been a “key” player, which implies that he actually took the field, not that he was merely on the roster. That implication in turn supplied the context within which “my plays” implied that they were ones he personally executed, not that he merely suggested from the sidelines.
=================
Part 2B:
Back to our Peruvian peas. In defending himself against Kimball’s charge, Korff (on the XZone show of the night of February 15, 2007) conceded that he didn’t actually testify as a witness in the trial, but went on to offer a quibbling defense like that of the bench-warmer’s above. Here’s what he said:
(He stressed “did,” which amounted to a diversionary insinuation that someone had said he hadn’t done so.)
Kal’s defense ignores the role of context in determining which of the various meanings of “witness” was conveyed by his original statement. The Random House Dictionary gives five definitions of the noun form of “witness.” (Though the last two are mostly irrelevant here, I’ve included them for completeness.) The “examples” below are ones I’ve provided:
1. A person who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator, or eyewitness.
Example: “I was a witness to the Simpson murder.”
2. A person or thing that affords evidence.
Example: “I am an expert witness on photo-manipulation.” This is a second-hand “expert witness” who CAN testify about matters within his area of expertise.
3. A person who gives testimony, as in a court of law.
Example: “I was a witness in the OJ Simpson case.” This is a “court-case witness”: one who testified under oath in a legal proceeding.
4. A person who signs a document attesting to the genuineness of its execution.
Example: “I was a witness to her will.”
5. Testimony or evidence: to bear witness to her suffering.
The audience is guided by the context to infer which of the meanings of “witness” is the one intended. For instance, in example #4, “I was a witness to her will,” the context of “her will” and the conjunction “to” after “witness” implies that he personally signed his name to her will. It would be a dissimulation to use those words if he were a “witness” only in the sense of definition #1. I.e., if he had merely observed the signing of her will. But this is the sort of thing that Kal has done.
The conjunction chosen indicates the meaning intended. That is, you can be a witness to something, on something, or in something. For instance, to indicate you were a witness in a legal proceeding, you use the word “in”, along with the name of the proceeding. There is no justification for using that conjunction in connection with the other two sorts of witnessing. It would be misleading to use the words “in a lawsuit” if you had been only a non-testifying witness to or on something.
A witness in [a] lawsuit isn’t any old witness—i.e., one who merely has knowledge that he can testify to or about (definition #1 or #2). A witness “in a lawsuit” is one who has knowledge that he actually did testify to (definition #3). That’s its meaning, to any native-English speaker. There’s no way for a person to have been a witness in a lawsuit and not to have testified.
To sum up: You can be a witness INSIDE a trial, or one OUTSIDE a trial. If you use the word “IN” in conjunction with “witness” and the name of a trial, you are telling your audience you were a witness INSIDE a trial. “In” doesn’t mean merely peripherally involved in a trial, although perhaps “in” has that meaning in Czech. “Peripherally involved in” means OUTSIDE the trial; and if you were OUTSIDE the trial, you can’t say you were “in” it.
Korff’s other words and statements also led his audience to believe that he actually testified at the O.J. Simpson trial, namely:
1. Being “a star witness in [a] lawsuit effort” is the very opposite of being a non-testifying, behind-the-scenes, consultant-type “expert witness,” which is what he actually was. A “star” witness is one whose light has shone forth brightly for all to see, not one who has been hidden under a bushel. The Random House Dictionary gives, as its first definition for the adjectival form of “star,” the following: “celebrated, prominent, or distinguished; pre-eminent; a star basketball player; a star reporter.” No one who sat out a game would say he starred in it. (Barring Kal Korff.)
2. He said, “I was the guy that sank it” [Groden’s testimony], his “I” implying a direct involvement—i.e., a personal appearance in court.
3. Korff stated (in his comment on Paul Kimball’s December 29 blog-post), “I provided the expert testimony to tear down and tear apart Groden's testimony.” The Random House Dictionary gives two definitions of “testimony” that are relevant here:
Korff provided testimony only in the second sense. I.e., he “testified” to the plaintiff’s lawyers his reasons for thinking that Groden’s interpretation was wrong (definition #2). But the word “testimony” is rarely used nowadays in that sense—for merely offering an opinion when not under oath.
In addition to that, definition #1 is what an audience will be led to infer when a courtroom context is provided—especially when there’s other context supporting that inference, such as a claim that “I was a key witness in [a] lawsuit,” and a mention of tearing down “Groden’s testimony,” which was courtroom testimony. Korff’s equivocal use of words once again misled his readers.
Notice also his lawyerly phraseology, which gave him an escape hatch if he were accused of being misleading:
• He didn’t say “lawsuit,” but “lawsuit effort.”
• He didn’t say, “I testified,” but “I provided the testimony.”
• He didn’t say “key witness,” but “key, expert witness.”
Only a lawyer’s ears would prick up at that unnecessary verbiage, because only a lawyer is trained to examine phraseology with a microscope, looking for hidden qualifications and wiggle room. 99% of Kal’s listeners would pass it off as his normal verbosity and miss his sleight of hand. They’d think, for instance, that “lawsuit effort” meant “lawsuit,” and that “key, expert witness” meant “a key expert witness,” not “an expert-witness consultant who was a key in the plaintiff-lawyers’ effort to win a lawsuit.”
These weasel words to allowed him to “act innocent” later if it became necessary. (Answers.com defines weasel word as: “An equivocal word used to deprive a statement of its force or to evade a direct commitment.”)
Kimball unfortunately failed to deconstruct Korff’s linguistic shell-game. I.e., he didn’t point out Korff’s misuse of context to convey a misleading impression. He merely insisted that “witness” meant a witness in a courtroom, period. Thus he had no counter to Korff’s sophistical insistence that “witness” did NOT necessarily mean a courtroom witness. This is the counter I’ve provided here: “I was a witness in a lawsuit” or “I was a star witness” can mean only a courtroom witness—i.e., one who testified.
=========
Part 3: Summing up for the Prosecution
Not in so many words, not explicitly—but he made that claim implicitly, by saying “witness in a trial.” Misleading people in this fashion is just a slicker version of outright lying:Korff said:
===============
Part 4: Potential “Judges”
You will get 1,700,000 hits if you type “expert witness directories” into Goggle, or if you click on the link below:
expert witness directories - Google Search
There are scores of such directories. They each list the names of numerous experts who are prepared to testify as expert witness. Under each name is a description of the expert’s qualifications. These entries are cobbled together by the directories’ copy editors out of raw material provided by the experts themselves. (Presumably in response to a questionnaire.)
A listee’s qualifications sometimes include an indication of how often he has testified, and occasionally the notable cases in which he did so. Lawyers prefer to hire an expert who has actually taken the stand, especially in “big” cases, because that is a clue that he sounds credible and can “take the heat.” Listees who claim such experience gain an edge, because they are more impressive, IOW.
I’ll eat a bug if any of the directories’ editors and readers wouldn’t consider themselves misled if a listee stated that he had been a witness in a certain trial, when he had actually only been consulted by the lawyers. (It would matter not a whit if he had been an uncalled on-call witness.) Such a listee would, I am sure, be severely reprimanded, and perhaps delisted, with the unanimous backing of the other listees.
This can be put to the test by polling the top dozen directories in Google’s search-results list about their opinion on my claim above. Their e-mail addresses could be obtained from their sites.
Similar e-mails could be sent to legal advice columnists, many of whom can be found online by plucking appropriate items from a Google search for “(legal advice OR law) (column OR columnist)”. Here’s a link with that search built in:
(legal advice OR law) (column OR columnist) - Google Search
And the faculty of law schools, or law-journal editors could be polled. I suggest PK start with his alma mater.
+++++++++++++
Note (for the sake of completeness): You can also say you were a witness for something, such as “I was a witness for the prosecution.” This implies a legal proceeding too, when a trial-related term like “prosecution” is used.
Another PS (added August 25): “at” can be a synonym for “in,” when used in a phrase like, “I was a witness at the OJ Simpson civil lawsuit.”
Part 2 of this article, when I get around to it, will examine the non-central issues in this dispute.
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
RK:
Very exhaustive, but I stand by my original point - the very essense of being a witness, especially an expert witness, is that you testified at a trial, under oath, subject to cross-examination. Korff's weasel-words are simply not relevant, so I chose not to deconstruct them, because as soon as he used the word "witness" in the context of a trial, it is my opinion (backed up by any legal dictionary you care to look at) that he was making, as Stan Friedman would say, a "false claim". Alas, his ego just can't stand being called on his false claims, which has led him to spend much of his time since trying to weasel his way out of what was clearly an exaggeration. If only he had said, "I was a consultant..."
Making it even worse is the FACT (as Kal would say) that only a court of law, after a voir dire, can qualify a person as an "expert witness".
I could go on, but why bother? ;-)
Paul
Very exhaustive, but I stand by my original point - the very essense of being a witness, especially an expert witness, is that you testified at a trial, under oath, subject to cross-examination. Korff's weasel-words are simply not relevant, so I chose not to deconstruct them, because as soon as he used the word "witness" in the context of a trial, it is my opinion (backed up by any legal dictionary you care to look at) that he was making, as Stan Friedman would say, a "false claim". Alas, his ego just can't stand being called on his false claims, which has led him to spend much of his time since trying to weasel his way out of what was clearly an exaggeration. If only he had said, "I was a consultant..."
Making it even worse is the FACT (as Kal would say) that only a court of law, after a voir dire, can qualify a person as an "expert witness".
I could go on, but why bother? ;-)
Paul