Column By Mike Bibb
I’ve heard there’s a difference between answering in court “No” or “I don’t know” to a question.
Sometimes, “Not to my knowledge” is expressed.
Which is it?
To the average individual, it probably doesn’t make much difference. All three seem to be a negative response to the question asked.
But are they?
For instance, if you were on the witness stand and asked the question “Do you believe elephants can fly?”, you might naturally respond “No.”
Facetiously, you could answer “No, unless he was Dumbo.”
Actually, that might be a legitimate answer.
However, replying with a definitive “No” could expose you to further questioning.
In a fictitious court case, a prosecuting attorney may inquire, “Mr. Joseph Schmoe, how can you be absolutely sure elephants can’t fly?”
“Because I’ve never seen one fly in my entire life,” Schmoe replies, confident his answer should satisfy the prosecutor.
However, Mr. Schmoe didn’t realize the prosecutor was a “Harvard Man,” expertly trained in over three thousand years of civil and criminal jurisprudence — and the procedures that go with it.
Basically, the esteemed prosecutor knows every trick in the book. Therefore, he isn’t bothered by Mr. Schmoe’s childish comment.
Continuing with his questioning, the prosecutor insists, “Just because you haven’t ever seen an elephant fly makes you believe they can’t. Is this correct?”
“Yes. It’s physically impossible for elephants to fly. Their ears aren’t big enough to provide sufficient lifting power and acceleration to propel an elephant through the air,” Schmoe explains.
Continuing with his reasoning, “You forget, sir, I’m an aeronautical engineer, with advanced studies in propeller, jet engine, and rocket aircraft capabilities. Written books on the subject, taught at major universities, advise the Air Force on the abilities and weaknesses of certain aircraft, and comprehend just about everything there is regarding every airplane invented and flown since the Wright Brothers,” Schmoe confidently informed the court.
“That’s an amazing accomplishment,” the prosecutor admits. “Would you consider yourself one of the world’s foremost authorities on just about anything that can fly?”
“Certainly. Maybe, THE foremost authority,” Schmoe brags, smiling at the judge and jury. “I’m surprised I haven’t won a Nobel Prize; I’m obviously the smartest guy in the room on the topic.”
After a brief pause, the prosecutor turns and asks Mr. Schmoe, “So, you know the difference between a Lockheed C-5M Super Galaxy and a Cessna 172 Skyhawk?”
Looking amazed at such a ridiculous statement, Schmoe quickly reacts, “Of course I do! What kind of question is that?”
“It’s relevant to your assumed knowledge of the subject; can an elephant fly?” the prosecutor assured Mr. Schmoe and the court.
“In what way?” Schmoe asks the prosecutor.
“In every way,” the prosecutor replies.
“I’m not getting your point,” Schmoe answers.
Realizing the witness was now in position to expose his actual conception if elephants can fly, the prosecutor continues — “Mr. Schmoe, can an elephant fit inside a Cessna 172 airplane?”
“What? Impossible. Everyone knows that,” Schmoe irritably responded.
Mr. Schmoe, in spite of his voluminous achievements and awards, was soon to discover he didn’t quite know everything about flying elephants that a Harvard lawyer knew.
Showing the judge, jury, and Mr. Schmoe a picture of an Air Force C-5M Super Galaxy heavy cargo carrier, the prosecutor inquired, “Sir, is it possible for an elephant to fit inside this kind of airplane?”
Grudgingly, Schmoe nodded his head and answered, “Yes.”
Summing up, the prosecutor reminded everyone in the courtroom, including Mr. Joseph Schmoe, “Then you openly admit you were wrong when you testified elephants couldn’t fly because their ears were too small to provide the needed lift and speed. Is this correct?”
“Yes.”
“Actually, in fact, elephants can fly if provided the proper equipment. Do you agree?” the prosecutor asked his final question.
“Yes.”
“Your Honor, I rest my case,” the prosecutor declared as he stepped back and returned to his seat.
Morale of the story: Words have meaning — sometimes in ways we don’t usually consider.
While an elephant cannot physically fly, any more than a human, they both can achieve that ambition by simply booking a flight on Southwest Airlines — or a U.S. Air Force C-5M Super Galaxy.
However, if you’re ever asked the “Can an elephant fly?” question in court, carefully consider your answer before responding.
Perhaps, an innocent “Not to my knowledge” will cover it. Indicating that you may or may not know if an elephant can fly.
By the way, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) invoked the “Not to my knowledge” excuse when asked by a news reporter if she was ever married to her brother.
Seems a simple “Yes” or “No” would have been more appropriate — and believable.
One would normally think a person would surely know if she was — at any time — married to her brother.
Unless she’s been married too many times to keep track of them all. Or perhaps, her brain has ceased functioning.
Then again, a lot of Congress folks seem mixed up about a bunch of things!
The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author.
