The second session for the controversial defamation case against the Arizonian Samaritan had a pretty late start. Nevertheless, it succeeded in a tense and eye-opening debate by the testimony of John Lambert.
John Lambert being an editor and writer of the article, was one of the most crucial factors in this case. As the testimony began, the witness revealed that his political spectrum was central and that he did not have an explicit grudge for the police department or the government. Mr. Lambert also stated that he "does not know them(the police department) personally and wrote pure facts". As he has been an editor for the newspaper from the past six years, he was aware of the poor financial state of the newspaper, but he asserted that there were "no pay cuts and no one was removed from the company".
When asked about the sources, the editor said that they were unknown and he was not allowed to disclose due to legal purposes. Later, the witness did confess that he did not know the source himself but just trusted it due to his past experiences with it. The prosecution also questioned if the witness was aware of the legality of the whole article, but he only knew the elementary legal details. Furthermore, instead of the legal consultant's opinion, Kenneth Lee, the owner of the newspaper, was consulted.
Moreover, the statistics were also slightly altered according to the prosecution, but Mr lambert believes he is not liable for any claims made because they were given by the source.
As the court progresses, the witnesses make the whole situation clearer for the jury so that justice can be finally served and hopefully the public is satisfied.
Daksh Nayyar
New York Times
Comentarios