On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> No, I didnt. That our courts are a lot more tolerant towards those who >> indulge in perjury is the disturbing part. > > Er...you *are* aware that the definition of perjury hinges on "know" and > not "suspect", yes?
Do you mean the defence lawyer does not "know" his client had confessed (and revealed his age in an earlier hearing) and later retracted the same. I'm not aware of his case details but does getting a new lawyer mean an earlier confession is invalid? > > Yes, but what did *you* _mean_ by that? by what ? "then dont" ? ... that contextual trolling is bait avoided. > Udhay, ignoring the temptation to riff on "suggestive contextomy" now i'm curious. -- .
