77 saying “So she just opened her door at ten o’clock at night to a stranger?”
Using this strategy, he influences the judge to think that Regina Campo has lied, because anyone normally would never open their door to a stranger at ten
o’clock at night. Furthermore, by using this strategy, Haller leads the audience to think that the officer supports and protects the liar victim.
2 Corliss conducts perjury by fabricating his testimony.
Context of situation:
Previously Corliss testified that Roulet confessed his crime to him for they were in cell together. Then, Haller showed the public a video which
proved that Corliss fabricated his testimony during the first appearance in the trial. After a video showed that Corliss fabricated his testimony. Haller
intended to make Corliss to admit his own perjury in front of the judge and juries. Therefore, he used rhetorical question to assert and to emphasize
Corliss negative action. This strategy is conducted by emphasizing
Corliss’ action dealing with his fabrication of testimony which he already done.
Haller : Yet, you testified under oath and penalty of perjury that he confessed crimes to you while you were both in the courtroom,
d
idn’t you? Corliss : I know I said that but I must have been mistaken. He must have told
me everything when we were in the holding cell.
Haller : You lied to the jury, didn’t you?
Corliss :
I didn’t mean to. That was the way I remembered it but I guess I was wrong. I was coming off a high that morning. Things got confused.
Data: CDA pg 303-304 38 In the dialogue above, Haller delivers his rhetorical questions based on
video tape which shows Corliss’ lie. Then, he „attacks’ Corliss with the first
rhetorical question “Yet, you testified under oath and penalty of perjury that
he confessed crimes to you while you were both in the courtroom, didn’t you?” This rhetorical question not only asserts that Corliss testimony
contradicts to the truth, but it also reminds the judge that Corliss has already
78 conducted a perjury with a penalty. Therefore, he has to be punished in this
time. Moreover, Haller asserts his claim that Corliss has fabricated his
testimony. The assertion can be examined by applying a rhetorical question as follows.
“You lied to the jury, didn’t you?” This question is not merely a yesno question, yet it is a rhetorical question which emphasized negative
action of Corliss. Moreover, this strategy makes him concede his lie.
e. Presupposition
Presupposition element is a statement which is used to support the meaning of a text. It has an effort to support the ideas by giving premise
which is believed to be true. It is done by giving certain questions to the adversaries, then Haller draws certain conclusion which conveys an assertion
or a question delivered to the adversaries. It aims to create paradox which makes the claims from the adversaries become doubtful.
The following dialogue presents the example of presupposition strategy used by Haller to legitimate his claim.
1 Regina Campo chooses to target Louis Roulet as a ticket for leaving her
profession as a prostitute.
Context of situation:
In this dialog, Haller emphasizes a fact about Campo who planned to leave her job as a prostitute. Then he uses this fact to draw a negative
presupposition of Campo.
Haller : You thought he was safe. Campo :
I guess so. I don’t know. I needed the money and I made a mistake
79 with him.
Haller : Did you think he was rich and could solve your need for money? Campo :
No, nothing like that. I saw him as a potential customer who wasn’t new to the game. Somebody who knew what he was doing.
Haller : Okay, I said. Then, isn’t it true, Ms. Campo, that you have told
several of your clients that your hope is to leave the business? Campo :
Yes, that’s true. She answered without hesitation for the first time in many questions.
Haller : Isn’t it also true that you see the potential financial aspects of
this case as a means of getting out of the business? Campo : No, that s not true, she said forcefully and without hesitation. That
man attacked me . He was going to kill me That’s what this is
about Data: CDApg 265 27
By applying the element of presupposition, Haller shows the public that from the beginning, Regina Campo has chosen to target Louis Roulet as a
ticket for leaving her profession as a prostitute. In order to legitimize this issue, the tricky questions are provided as the initial premise. These tricky
questions can be examined by the following question. “Okay, I said. Then,
isnt it true, Ms. Campo, that you have told several of your clients that your hope is to leave the business? Here, Campo without hesitation justifies this
question by answering: Yes, thats true. Then, Haller goes on his allegation by stating questions containing
presupposition related to the previous premise “Isn’t it also true that you see the potential financial aspects of this case as a means of getting out of the
business?” The question “Okay, I said. Then, isn’t it true, Ms. Campo, that you have
told several of your clients that your hope is t o leave the business?” indicates
that Campo has planned to leave her profession as a prostitute. People believe
80 that if someone really wants to leave their job, shehe must have another new
job or shehe already has enough money to leave hisher job and get retired. However, in this cross examination it is known that Campo does not have
another job. Furthermore, she previously justified Haller’s claim that Roulet is
a safe guy. Moreover she previously also said that she needed money. It can be examined in her statement as follows
: “I guess so justifying Haller’s question “You thought he was safe”. I don’t know. I needed the money and I
made a mistake with him.” By stating this premise, Haller draws a conclusion containing
presupposition as it can be seen in his question as follows. “Isn’t it also true
that you see the potential financial aspects of this case as a means of getting out of the business?” This question contains allegation which leads the juries
to think that from beginning, Regina Campo has chosen to target Louis Roulet as a ticket for leaving her profession as a prostitute. This allegation seems
legitimate for the fact that Roulet is a rich man. Therefore, Campo can sue him for money from this lawsuit.
2 Corliss is never charged with perjury since he deliberately sent by the
police.
Context of situation:
In previous conversations, Corliss evidently lied over his testimony about Roulet. Haller also showed the juries and judge that he repeatedly conducted
perjury by fabricating testimony about innocent defendant who confessed to him dealing with the crime they have done. Strangely, he had never been
charged with perjury ever since.
Haller : Were you ever charged with perjury in the Bentley case? I asked
