Charlie Rose

jason  02/13/2012 02:50 AM Report

many people think rich ppl have special justice as they can afford five star attorneys. bear in mind, rich ppl also have tremendous legal risk for the simple fact they are rich. they are easy target for money scams...

YNHow  02/10/2012 07:24 AM Report

great interview, from the very morning this affair was in the medias, bare intuition and common sense told me : not that Mr Straus-Khan was innocent of everything, but rather that it was too much of a fiesta for someone else to be a completely genuine-with-no-interference situation...

Also: Hard work, passion and determination are succes keys to any domain of human ability. Totally agree. It is when the man molds himself onto his work that great results can be achieve and by the same way that confidence can be obtained. This is one of the reason why there is no competition for Mr. Rose's show, wich rocks solid.

ShalomFreedman  02/10/2012 02:26 AM Report

At least two important points were made. 1) A good defense attorney does not concentrate on dealing with the media, but rather on getting his client acquitted. 2) Strauss- Kahn was punished by losing his political future. The very fact of the accusation put an end to him. This is how many public figures are 'finished off' 3)

Ellen_Dibble  02/09/2012 05:01 PM Report

I see nobody is voting stars on this interview. Maybe celebrities should be voting five stars for the fact that there are uber-advocates for those who are, usually by choice, more in the spotlight -- whether by power, wealth, or otherwise. I am suspicious that justice might be more (or less) even-handed for those who can afford starred lawyers. So -- I don't know what I think, in general or in specific. Justice is always the best we can do, with many rough edges. I await the Great French Novel about the 24 Hours after the Event -- the political and personal machinations in the back stairways of the Sofitel, chez the eminence grise in Paris, and various police in New York. Skip the facts and focus on the explosive possibilities.

Ellen_Dibble  02/09/2012 04:08 PM Report

I liked Brafman's way of explaining cross-examination, that people tend to see things as black or white, but in reality things are shades of gray, and cross-examination succeeds if jurors are pulled out of the black-white into the grayness of the issue at hand, which is where and why their judgment is called for -- "judgment" meaning "beyond a reasonable doubt." I recently read that people with low IQ's tend to be concrete and see things in black and white, which (low IQ) then gets defended as perfectly adequate for most of what life requires, but I'm wondering if jurors are screened by IQ, capacity for gray perception. I think potential jurors mostly self-screen, telling the judge they would decide by gut reaction, more or less, for what it's worth. That would seem to be an issue for the Brain series.

tabs  02/09/2012 02:49 PM Report

Mr Brafman keeping his eye squarely on the prize of getting his client out of the Docket and not being distracted by the noise is a given in his proffession. Then there is the old axiom of if it looks like it, smells like it and tastes like it, it is it. Without a doubt there were people in Europe and elsewhere that knew of Khans predilections and were waiting for him to give them opportunity. One wonders what Kahn was thinking in that hotel room, when he should have been remembering Don Corleone's immortal words, "That women and children can afford to be careless, men especially if powerful can not."

Then if one really wants to delve into abstract connections one would look at events before and after his arrest. Here one notices that Bin Laden was killed on May 1 and Kahn was arrested on May 14. Then one would look at the onset of the European debt crisis to see who would have benefited from his professional demise.

As far as interrogation goes one can add that one should be paying close attention to detail and the internal consistency of the story. Then there is paying attention to how one feels and thinks about the story.

With regards to Mr Roses show, there is invariably something that the guest would like to discuss that is shall we say off topic and will say a sentence or two in reference to that subject...even Mr Churkin has done that upon occasion

REMant  02/09/2012 11:54 AM Report

Well, this is Perry Mason stuff. Gardner's attitude (altho not always since he also wrote a series from the POV of the police) was that the criminal justice system was not only prejudiced, but usually so in favor of elites, and re-election, and thus he had Mason take up not only investigating himself, but also attempting to stymie the juggernaut and get an acquittal in the preliminary stages. He also frequently faulted the police and prosecution for trying cases in the media. Mason, was, of course, also said to be a great cross-examiner. And most of his cases were elaborate, "locked room" type frame-ups. But I think all the stuff said about success is malarkey. Would that it were deserved, but it is in most cases, not, if only because of genes, if not public caprice.