“We’re not gonna have a war, we’re gonna have the appearance of a war.”
Conrad Brean (Robert de Niro)
“Look at that! That is a complete f….. fraud, and it looks a hundred percent real. It’s the best work I’ve ever done in my life, because it’s so honest.”
Stanley Motss (Dustin Hoffman)
Wag the Dog (1997)
In Barry Levinson’s dark comedy Wag the Dog, we see a savvy political operative/spin doctor (Robert de Niro) get together with an exuberantly resourceful Hollywood executive (Dustin Hoffman) to generate images and footage of a fictional war to distract and misdirect the public from focusing on a scandal involving the US President. Over the course of a week or so, an ensemble of writers, actors, song writers, cameramen, and technicians put together a persuasive, realistic, bamboozling visual narrative. Crisis averted; scandal disremembered.
Not that what we see on TV and social media today on the events unfolding in Ukraine or Gaza or elsewhere are fictional. To the contrary, these are real events with real victims, real destruction, real misery, real consequences. But how much of what we see (and hear about what is being seen) should we believe? Most I suspect. Yet, most is not sufficient, just as close enough is not trustworthy in criminal proceedings where the evidence (as in any type of trial whether civil, commercial, or criminal) needs to be authentic and reliable – assuming it is relevant.
The process of determining the admissibility of evidence is rather straight forward. A foundation needs to be laid. The proponent will adduce evidence from witnesses who will testify as to the provenance of the evidence. In some cases, it may also be necessary to establish the reliability of the evidence through witnesses who have generated or collected and/or analyzed the evidence – before testimony on the substance of the evidence can/should be taken. Of course, before the evidence is admitted for the purposes of eliciting substantive evidence on what it purports to prove or disprove, the opposing side should be given an opportunity to conduct a voir dire, i.e., a cross-examination on the provenance, authenticity, reliability, and in some instances, the relevance. Continue reading “TRUE Project and Inner Temple Demystify the “New Frontiers in Evidence” – User Generated and Open Source Material”

Palestine cannot have it both ways. As a State Party, it cannot expect the ICC to investigate crimes alleged to have been committed against Palestinians by Israel (through the Israeli Defense Forces), yet not be held to account for crimes alleged to have been committed by Hamas against Israelis.
Much can be said about the politics of international criminal justice, the tolerated/excused hypocrisy in the behavior of certain states (in particular the permanent five members of the UN Security Council), and yes, the callousness or indifference or obliviousness in viewing, accepting, and even promoting inequity. We often tend to justify or minimize inaction or overreaction or selective action when it either suits us or when we lazily adopt a so what or a that’s the way things are attitude. Even when occasionally we truly believe something is off-kilter, irreconcilable, or just plain wrong, we rarely are willing to call it for what it is, to speak truth to power, to dare voice an unpopular position because it is simply the right thing to do. With no agenda in mind, here are a couple of matters worth expressing, however seemingly distasteful it may be to criticize anything related to Ukraine and its efforts in seeking peace and justice. 