[protomyth]

The basic tactic is release the clip, watch for the "its edited, that's not what I said" response, then release the full video with even worse stuff in it. I really think in this day and age, its a really good template for anyone doing investigative reporting. Plus, it works fine with click advertising since it creates two waves per video.

[nickpsecurity]

Well, with you putting it that way, I can't say too much against the tactic. :) It's actually quite similar to what I wanted to convince courts to allow as a default in the event that they don't already. That is to let me withhold a smoking gun on a case where they might get low charges or punishment due to technicalities. Let them argue their case with lies to the court. Then, show the smoking gun with a follow-up of perjury to keep them from dodging a significant punishment.

How feasible does that sound? I know people do it to themselves accidentally but not sure if judges would allow the tactic intentionally by a non-prosecutor.

[tedunangst]

As far as I know, only the prosecution has an obligation to provide exculpatory evidence. That said, if you wait to half way through your murder trial to produce the video of the one armed man stuffing the body in your trunk, that probably sets you up for interfering with a police investigation, or aiding and abetting, etc.

[nickpsecurity]

(Sighs) That's a good point. They mighy try to score an extra conviction on their record in same trial.

[protomyth]

Not sure on the court tactic, but I get the feeling the video tactic is more a "give them the rope" style that is often used in court by lawyers during examination.