Clitheroekid wrote:Quite so. And in view of the moderator's quite justified comments might I suggest that we stop speculating and await the result of Pheid's enquiries with the solicitors?
Agreed, except that the point Gengulphus was making was to discourage Pheid from asking a narrow and specific question: "We will ask the solicitor who prepared whether they have a signed copy of the (2006) will". And instead ask a broader, more open-ended question.
Whereas I had argued previously for a narrower and more specific question like Pheid is considering, with follow-up questions as necessary (*)
Which approach to adopt is something that Pheid needs to decide BEFORE he has that discussion, and so it does seem legitimate to discuss that here and now. In any event, I took the Mod to be talking more about our digressions about perjury, murder etc.
(*) I was once very expensively coached by a "testimony expert" for an appearance as a witness for the defence in a fairly big (millions) civil case. There are a number of pieces of advice I was given at the time, but one was that the defence lawyer would object to any questions that were overly broad or that call for narrative. Questions should be narrow and precise, ideally calling for Yes/No answers. And responses should address only the question and nothing more.
Overkill for just a chat, you will probably say. But personally whenever I think there is a chance of legal problems down the road, I remember that advice and don't engage in broad chats. Every word is carefully chosen.