let's talk about the ryan giggs assault trial in the uk
yesterday giggs went into evidence in his own defense
and i was watching the channel 4 news last night and i was not surprised at all about the attack
that his defense counseled his defense queen's council took but to the ordinary observer it might
have appeared to be an unusual one he began the questioning the direct examination of ryan giggs
by putting it to gigs that he was known for two things one is football and two his infidelity
he went on then to extract from giggs a number of less than flattering admissions quite frankly
giggs admitted that he had never been faithful in any of his relationships or with any of his wives
he had always been unfaithful he had always cheated and he had always lied
and then the line of questioning was did you assault this lady kate gravel or his
girlfriend his former girlfriend who's the subject matter of this or the reason for this
prosecution for assault against kings and he said no and of course the fact that he denied
it after making to damaging admissions about cheating about lying about his infidelity
the fact that he made those admissions meant that the denial then of the salt
of kate greville or whatever the lady's name was was more credible and that was the whole purpose
of his defense counsel setting him up in the first instance setting out in the open that gigs
is no saint that he's a liar and that is a cheat but that damage in admission or those damaging
admissions made the denial then of assault more credible whether it works or not remains to be
seen because obviously the court will have to decide or the jury will have to decide
ultimately on whether giggs is innocent or guilty and whether he assaulted his former partner or not
but that tactic that his queen's counsel used is a straightforward tactic called
at least what i call the damaging admission it can be used in court it can be used in the wrc
it can be used in the labor court it can even be used if you're selling something
and i've made videos about this in the past to damaging admission as a powerful sales tool
if for example you were selling a second-hand car and somebody came to look at it and it looked
great and you then brought the person's attention who's looking at your car to a scrape perhaps over
the rear wheel arch or some other imperfection in the car everything that you see after that is
going to have more credibility simply because you didn't try to hide anything in fact you brought
the infirmity the imperfection to the attention of the other party and you made a damaging admission
i'm not saying it's ethically right i'm not saying it's ethically wrong i'm just saying that it's an
incredibly effective tactic when you're going to persuade and giggs queen's council needs to
persuade he needs to persuade the jury that when giggs denies assaulting kate greville
or his former partner not sure whether kate is her name or that's her sister's name but when
giggs denies assaulting her queen's counsel wants that denial to be believed and accepted and that
is the tactic that his queen council adopted yesterday from the outset and which to an
ordinary observer may appear to have been a crazy line of questioning but it wasn't crazy at all
it was setting up the question the scenario of did you assault her no this is i know a denial after
making the admissions that he was never faithful he always lied and he always cheated and he's
known for his football we can all agree with that anyway i hope you find this video useful
and instructive or informational or of some value if you do would appreciate if you give
the thumbs up down below and i make videos about irish law business entrepreneurship that sort of
thing i'm a solicitor in in field and county mead my name is terry gory thanks for watching