CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THE THEOLOGY OF SPIRIT

On the later part of the direct examination, Bishop Shrewd strategically managed to propound his last two questions:

Bishop Shrewd: Considering all those presentations, can you please tell us your educational qualifications and studies in relation with your thesis on the existence of the spirit?

Rev. Swindler: I obtained my Bachelor of Christian Ministry in 1970; Bachelor of Theology in 1973; Master of Arts in Theology in 1975; and Doctor of Theology in 1979. All from Harvard University.

Bishop Shrewd: Now, can you categorically state that spirit exists in reality?

Rev. Swindler: Affirmative.

Bishop Shrewd: Thank you, Reverend.

Arbiter: Cross-examination, any?

Barrister79: Reverend, in all years of your studies, have you come to directly observe spirits?

Rev. Swindler: Yes, in many ways.

Barrister79: I am not asking about the “many ways”, Reverend. Did you understand the question?

Bishop Shrewd: Is that a sort of an insult, sir?

Barrister79: You have the right to take it as such, Bishop. I was asking about the direct observation on spirits based on the assertion of its real existence. Was it difficult to understand?

Arbiter: Are you asking of an observation based on physical contact?

Barrister79: I want to know if that is what he meant with his statement that spirit exists in reality.

Bishop Shrewd: That is preposterous, Your Honor. Spirits does not have physical bodies. Its reality is not based on material substance as what is established in the direct examination, this Holy Tribunal has the record.

Barrister79: That is the reason why I am asking, Your Honor, about the Reverend’s direct observation to check whether the reality he is talking is excusively a product of his studies or something which we could possibly know by virtue of the object which could be directly observed.

Bishop Shrewd: I am requesting for an order, Your Honor. I recommend to aim his examination on the term “reality” as the foundation which is ought to be laid.

Arbiter: Comment from the cross-examiner.

Barrsiter79: That is improper, Your Honor. It is my understanding that there is no reality other than the observable reality. If the purpose of the Bishop’s obstruction is to prevent me from asking any further question, then I will yield should they admit that the reality they are talking are mere concepts and not the objective reality. Now, if I may proceed, Your Honor?

Arbiter: Please proceed.

Barrister79: Thank you! Reverend, do you know that every real object has a component?

Rev. Swindler: Yes, I am aware of it.

Barrister79: Are you also aware that only nothing is composed of nothing?

Rev. Swindler: Ahhh… Yes.

Barrister79: Do you know that there is no reality when there is no composition which makes it real?

Bishop Shrewd: Your Honor, the examiner was just playing the semantics of language.

Barrister79: We can stop playing, Bishop, if the reality of your spirits will be established. Allow me to proceed, Your Honor!

Arbiter: Answer the question.

Rev. Swindler: Yes, of course. No composition – No reality.

Barrsiter79: Good. [smiling] Now, can you tell us what composed the spirit you have directly observed?

Rev. Swindler: You mean the composition that makes spirit real?

Barrister79: Never mind, Reverend. Just don’t bother yourself about it. 

Rape Case Cross-Examination Conducted by the Defense

From the ancient time until this present era of legal system, the questioning part has been the interesting portion of the entire scene; it is because this is the moment wherein the public could observe the flow of the mind of the defense and prosecution.

In the laws of public offenses, rape cases has been considered as a measuring ground of basic intelligence of the counsels and witnesses. This is one of the cases where all arguments and terminal of ideas would be aiming at a fixed target, id est, in rape the basic focus of the defense’s examination will be on 1.Consent provided by the mind [consensus mentis] 2.Consent provided by the mouth [consensus verbis] 3.Consent provided by the body [consensus corpus].

The cross-examiner will just be aiming at any of the consent which could disprove the existence of rape.

Theories: 1. If it is proven that the plaintiff  mentally consented, then there is no rape; 2. If it is proven that the plaintiff verbally consented, then there is no rape; 3. If it is proven that the plaintiff biologically consented, then there is no rape.

Barrister79: Are you certain that it was the penis of the accused which entered into your vagina?

Witness: Yes, sir.

Barrister79: Was the penis soft or hard?

Witness: It is hard sir.

_____________________________________________________________

It could be inferred from the answer that the witness as the “rape victim” was CONCENTRATING on the object that entered into her. Such an indicator of concentration could be the battleground for further questioning to elicit consent from the “rape victim”.

Car Accident 2: My Cross-Examination

The same facts on Car Accident 1. Only the College Counsel tried to repair the damage by pursuing his re-direct examination. Hence, this re-cross examination.

Barrister79: You said you were picking students from corner to corner and from street to street, did I get you correctly?

Witness: That’s it.

Barrister79: Just answer the question “yes” or “no”

Magistrate: Please be guided. When a question is categorical, the answer must also be categorical. Is that clear with you Mr. Witness?

Witness: Yes Sir.

Barrister79: Meaning, there are already students on board the school bus at the time of the collision in the corner of Redwood and Howard Street?

Witness: Yes, Sir. That is the reason for me to be careful… (interrupted by the question)

Barrister79: How many of them? Just a probability.

College Counsel: The numbers of the students Your Honor is not within the function of the school bus driver, he is free not to answer the quetion.

Barrister79: I was just asking the probability of the numbers, not their exact number, which is only a continuation inquiry on his testimony that he was not running fast the school bus because he was picking students from corner to corner and from street to street. And to be reminded, the noun “students” is a plural noun which could be known by probability using the “more or less” safe measures.

Magistrate: Alright, alright. What is your point counsel?

Barrister79: My point is yet to be established if Your Honor will allow me to proceed. May I?

Magistrate: I cannot see the relevance of numbers in your questioning counsel.

Barrister79: Ok, Your Honor. Let me rephrase my question. Are there already many students on board in the school bus during the collision?

College Counsel: No relevance, Your Honor.

Magistrate: Is that a comment or an objection?

Barrister79: Your Honor, the intent of the counsel is only to obstruct my examination. If there is no relevance, then it is advantageous to them. Besides, why can’t they just listen to see the relevance of the questioning?

College Counsel: Your Honor, please… (interrupted by the Magistrate)

Magistrate: Alright, I will allow the question only if you could relate this to the purpose of your recross examination. Proceed. Mr. Witness, are there many students in the bus?

Witness: Yes, Sir.

Barrister79: According to reports, some of the students shouted “aahhh..a car” and others “ooohhhh..a car” prior to the collision, did it really happen?

Witness: Perhaps

Barrister79: You are not sure?

Witness: Yes, Sir. They shouted.

Barrister79: Thank you. Did you applied your brakes then?

Witness: Yes, Sir.

___________________________________________________________

Common sense provides us the conclusion that applying brakes (during the time the students shouted) is already too late. It brings the possible theory that the driver may have been awaken by the students’ shouts. After the last question, the examiner has the option to make a serpentine smile to the opposing counsel and to the magistrate.

Car Accident 1: My Cross-Examination

Facts: In the corner of Redwood and Howard Street, a red automobile (represented by Barrister79) suddenly appeared. A school bus of a local college run through a corner that resulted into a collision. The driver witness established in his testimony his diligence, due observance of driving rules, and his driving expertise. Hence, this cross-examination:

Barrister79: Sir, how long have you been a driver for the Peter’s College?

College Counsel: Objection, already answered during the direct examination.

Barrister79: The question, Your Honor, is not redundant because the witness answered 25 years of driving experience in totality, but my question is concentrated on the number of years being a school bus driver for Peter’s College.

Magistrate: Objection, overruled. Witness, answer the question. Read the question to the witness again.

Witness: I have been a bus driver of the Peter’s College for 16 years now.

Barrister79: That is a good experience, I suppose. Do you check the bus you are driving before you start it on?

Witness: Yes, I will check the oil, the brakes, (interrupted by the question)

Barrister79: Do you still check the bus you are driving after starting it on?

Witness: Yes, to see if the engine is in good running condition and.. (interrupted by the question)

Barrister79: Good, you are a diligent driver, I suppose. Are all the lights, brakes and gauges then functioning good?

College Counsel: Objection, Your Honor, it was already established.

Magistrate: Established only during your direct examination, answer the question.

Witness: Yes, they were. I have it checked before I… (interrupted by the question)

Barrister79: Before the collision took place, did you consider that there is a corner in the streets Redwood and Howard?

Witness: I am aware of it Sir. I have been traversing that road for  more than 20 years.

Barrister79: Please underline the unresponsive answer Your Honor.

Magistrate: Underline the answer. Do you want the witness to categorically answer your question?

College Counsel: I think the answer Your Honor is “yes”.

Barrister79: Your Honor, I am not asking the Counsel on the hermenuetics of the witness’ answer, I know the answer myself. It is not necessary to..(interrupted by the comment of the Magistrate)

Magistrate: Alright, proceed.

Barrister79: Did you drive the school bus so fast then?

Witness: No, Sir. I had been picking students from… (interrupted by the question)

Barrister79: So, at what speed were you running the school bus in the Redwood Road then prior to the corner?

Witness: It was not fast Sir, only 40 kms per hour. Because I was picking.. (interrupted by the question)

Barrister79: Not fast, of course. How could you be certain of your speed?

Witness: Well, there is a spedometer – a gauge which will tell any driver.. (interrupted by the question)

Barrister79: Ah, yes, the gauge which you said was functioning well. So, prior to the collision, your speed was only 40 kms per hour according to your gauge. Did you look at your gauge if it is really that speed?

College Counsel: Already answered Your Honor.

Magistrate: The witness only said that there is a gauge to rely on. That is how I understood. But the question now is different. Did you look at the gauge to verify your speed?

Witness: Yes, Your Honor.

Barrister79: Thank you Sir. I think we now know the cause of the accident.

__________________________________________________________

The College Counsel failed to object the usage of the term “look” instead of “glance” at the gauge. For common sense, it is the negligent part of the driver to look upon the gauge prior to the unfortunate incident. Meaning, the driver was looking at the gauge (instead of the road) which resulted into an accident.