Posted By:
Kenny ColeI have a real high level of discomfort with the basic concept that someone who I am relying on to tell me the truth about something I submit to them has either: a) falsified their resume; or b) knowingly allowed someone else to do so.
Maybe I am overly paranoid and it's just me. However, whether it be a trial or the real world, I simply don't think that I would give someone who I know has misrepresented their background the same degree of credence as I would give someone who has not. That is especially true if that person ends up buying my item and selling it for a ton much more money than they purchased it for, as appears to be the case in the Henrich/Dimaggio bat situation.
I agree that lawyers can sometimes make mountains out of molehills during a trial. But isn't it interesting how trials so often boil down to an assessment of the credibility of the witness? Have you ever won a trial where the jury thought your principal fact (don't want to go into experts 
) witnesses lied? I haven't. If you have, you've done a better lawyering job than me.
It seems to me we both agree that Bushing's credibility regarding his background would be a huge issue in any trial which either of us participated in. Consequently, I fail to understand how you can, at the same time, say that it isn't a pertinent issue otherwise. If he can't even tell the truth about his background, why should people rely on him to accurately describe the items that he is both authenticating and selling? I wouldn't.
Kenny Cole