[that_guy_iain]

> a) In what universe would any attorney take up a lawsuit against a moneyed company with nothing but testimony from one person?

Well, you take up the lawsuit with not much. You get most of the evidence during discovery. And this is quite a common thing someone says "This happened to me" they sue and get discovery. So this universe.

> b) I made none of those other arguments and they're irrelevant to my single-sentence question.

It was all relevant, you just seem to be extremely ignorant of the subject. You said the case was damaged, however, it appears you're starting to realise it may not be damaged at all.

> c) If testimony doesn't impact trials and it's all a matter of competing paperwork, why do we have testimony at all? Well, juries for one. Court cases aren't merely about dispassionately weighing competing facts: they're adversarial pursuits of persuasion.

So the other side can cross.

[chefandy]

> Well, you take up the lawsuit with not much. You get most of the evidence during discovery. And this is quite a common thing someone says "This happened to me" they sue and get discovery. So this universe.

> I said if _ALL_ they have is him it lacks legs.

... so you're referring to instances where discovery didn't yield anything useful but the attorney keeps litigating against a company with a ton of resources based on unsupported assertions made by one person. Ok, sure. That sounds like a great point that's germane to this situation.

> It was all relevant, you just seem to be extremely ignorant of the subject.

Ok, Perry Mason. Re-read the single sentence question I asked and then tell me how that implies I'm some sort of conspiracy theorist.

> You said the case was damaged, however, it appears you're starting to realise it may not be damaged at all.

What?

> So the other side can cross.

Are you seriously implying testimony does not influence the outcome of a trial without cross-examination. You should see how much thought attorneys put into what they wear because it influences outcome.

I'm done here.

[that_guy_iain]

> ... if the attorney does not find any evidence during discovery, they don't just keep going.

Sure they do, because as you're pointing out in some cases witness testimony can be enough. And sometimes the damage of the PR can be enough to make them settle.

> Ok, Perry Mason. Re-read the single sentence question I asked and then tell me how that implies I'm some sort of conspiracy theorist.

No one said anything about you being anything other than extremely ignorant of the subject. Being ignorant doesn't make you anything other than ignorant.

>Are you seriously implying testimony does not influence the outcome of a trial without cross-examination.

No, I'm telling you the literal reason they have witnesses and don't just take their testimony.

And remember, this guy is a researcher the chances he is going to be super charismatic on the stand and sway people massively is as likely him going on SNL when he was alive.

In cases like this the expert witnesses are just there for facts and it's pretty dry. It's not that powerful like a murder victim's mother who found them dead. That's powerful.

> I'm done here.

Ask questions and then say I'm done here. Yea... You came in thinking you had a point and you're realising you don't but your ego won't allow you to stop replying and you need to keep going. You don't even need to admit your wrong you can just not reply.