Reply #60: I agree, I would always examine an idea or statement and

[karynnj]

determine if I would agree - no matter who says something. However, I know I give more credibility to people I believe are trustworthy. For example, if John Kerry sites a study on some aspect of global warming, I would be likely to believe it because he is very well informed on this and from past experience, he is very honest. (This does not mean that I would not read other sources and if there were contradictions end up thinking the report is not universally accepted.)

Here, you have a court room setting. The jurors are banned from searching the internet to get their own information. They make judgments on the basis of what both sides say. My point is that in his past, Edwards was able to convey honesty, sincerity and people trusted him. But, after he lied straight faced with wide big blue eyes, many would likely not trust that he is honest on anything. They know he can and will manipulate the facts - and look honest, even when he is not.

As he is likely known to a huge percent of the country, he might have a hard time getting a jury that is unbiased about him - I seriously don't see how any client would want that.