June 1, 2022
3 min
According to growthbadger.com and earthweb.com, there are currently more than 600 million blogs in the world. And according to those same sources, there are more than 6 million blog posts published every day – and more than 2.5 billion such posts published every year.
So, “Why in hell do we need another one?” you might ask.
Let us tell you why…
During the course of the pandemic – when we were spending the majority of our time at home – we each had an opportunity to scour the internet for news about various trials that were of interest to us.
What we found was that most media reports – regardless of whether they were newspaper stories, television news broadcasts, blog posts, etc. – simply reiterated what had happened during the most recent day’s proceedings without ever explaining how those events were related to the legal issues involved in the case. In fact, except for an occasional quote from an attorney who was not directly involved in the case, all the reports were bereft of any explanation of those legal issues in a way that the average layperson could fully understand.
After discussing this problem at length, we concluded that there was likely a sizeable group of people who would be interested in reading posts that accurately and objectively reported on the latest developments involved in a trial that we were covering – and that also explained what those developments meant in terms of the legal issues involved in the case.
We monitored a couple of such cases (U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell and U.S. v. R. Kelly) – and discussed how we would have reported on them if we already had this blog up and running. We tried out different formats – and finally settled on the one that we think will be most informative for our readers.
Along the way, we also realized that there are lots of issues and topics that also deserve to be presented factually and objectively with as little editorializing as possible. That’s why we decided we would also write posts about issues and topics that our readers suggested and/or that were of particular interest to them.
Regardless of whether a post is about a high-profile trial or a topic of interest, we’ll endeavor to focus on facts – and avoid subjective opinions or perspectives. Our Op-Ed pieces will be where we state our personal thoughts about the outcomes of trials – and our viewpoints on various issues and topics.
In an ideal world, we would have launched this blog before – rather than after– the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial. But the world is rarely ideal – and rather than wait for another case like this to come along, we decided to launch Trials & Truths now and to have some of our initial posts focus on that trial.
For future trials, we’ll provide a pre-trial summary of the legal issues involved in the case – and outline what the plaintiff in a civil case – or the prosecution in a criminal case – has to prove in order to be successful. We’ll also provide an overview of what strategies the defendant may utilize as they look to avoid losing.
From now through September 30, 2022, all our readers will be able to access all the sections of our blog for free. Thereafter, we plan to add some additional components and features that will only be available to readers who purchase one of our three low-cost subscriptions. These additional components and features will include, but not necessarily be limited to, such things as additional posts; access to legal filings in cases that have gone to trial; access to daily transcripts from ongoing trials; access to additional photographs; links to related media reports; and participation in Zoom meetings that will feature in-depth discussions about various trials and topics.
Hopefully, you’ll enjoy our approach to reporting on interesting trials and other matters. We also hope that you’ll make suggestions regarding specific trials and/or topics that you would like us to write about – and share any suggestions you may have regarding any aspect of the Trials & Truths blog.
You can follow us on Twitter at https://twitter.com/TrialsTruths – and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/trialsandtruths.
Help us spread the word:
#TrialsTruths #Trials&Truths #TrialsandTruths
********************
I have been reading this site, and have come up with a larger conclusion as to its purpose and mission. It is a site not about trials, per se, but about that thing we (and Shakespeare) call the Human Condition. We read Romeo and Juliet not because we care about the tale of two teenagers 400 plus years ago. We read Romeo and Juliet, along with the rest of Shakespeare, because Shakespeare captured the “Human Condition”.
We all understand the pains and desperation of that first love.
As we have evolved in a society, the human condition, although still intact, has changed. Suddenly, we have abortion to deal with. A Constitution. Michael Avanati and his porn star client who we feel sorry for, even as she herself tries to gain respect as a sex worker.
And then, let’s not forget the real reason behind the Amber Heard trial: The scorned lover, narcissism, the rich and famous living lives most of us only dream about. That’s why we’re drawn to such tabloid news.
In our modern society, we flush out the truth through litigation. The Plaintiff, the Defendant. Both given the same set of facts, the same sword, hoping to bend them in their favor.
The Human Condition is who we are as people that share this planet together. Lawsuits are how we govern ourselves and try and find truth and morality and gauge our existence in light of a God we all hope is watching.
I really love this!
I read a book 30 years ago (still have it) called The Litigators: Inside the Powerful World of America’s High Stakes Trial Lawyers. It was about the then top trial lawyers and how they approached cases and what made them.
My hero, F. Lee Bailey, was featured. His first case out of law school was a death penalty case he had to cover for. Can you imagine!! Never stepped foot in a courtroom before!
Another angle here would be featuring not just cases, but putting yourself in the shoes of the trial lawyer.
Just an idea.
Rich (FMN),
Just to clarify – are you suggesting that in addition to reporting on some cases, we also do a separate piece indicating how we would have handled the case? If so, that sounds like something that could be interesting – with Kristin doing one thing, and me the other.
Joe,
I was thinking the personal battles. F. Lee Bailey right out of law school handling a death penalty case. There’s others, the class action gurus, like the movie A Class Action portraying the solo against big corporations. Erin Brocovich. So not just tabloids, but the strategies and struggles of the little guy taking on the big guy. Let’s face it plaintiff firms are small and vicious, whereas defense firms have huge resources from corporate clients.
I found the book on Amazon. Absolutely worth the read and could be an interesting inclusion:
The Litigators: Inside the Powerful World of America’s High-Stakes Trial Lawyers
https://www.amazon.com/Litigators-Powerful-Americas-High-Stakes-Lawyers/dp/0312923937
Got it – let me discuss this with Kristin and get her input.
PS/I think I read that book years ago — but I will get a copy and read it again. F. Lee Bailey was a powerhouse of an attorney!
These are great ideas. I’d love to find a current case of a small shop or solo attorney taking on a big giant now in the present. Do you know of any?
I’ll dig one up. Not much since Vivid he’s captured the news
It’s interesting to note how most liberal media have spun this as unfair, racist, whatever.
Why on earth would anyone want ballot boxes that can be tampered with? Right out of the communist playbook.
BTW, I’m moderate–not conservative, not liberal–but if you read most of the media tonight, it’s right out of the communist playbook.
Anyway, here’s a link, with reasonable wording:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/wisconsin-supreme-court-outlaws-ballot-drop-boxes-elections-2022-07-08/
I have a ton of ideas. Some “oldies but goodies” that need a rehash, prior new newer, more recent cases (but not for everyone)
1. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg (She might have been innocent).
2. The Nuremberg Trials: (Most notably, Goering, who almost walked free and gave the most compelling evidence of why he should be not guilty).
3. Charles Lindbergh – his son was kidnapped, but new evidence say he might have been involved in it
4. Manson’s tie in with Raniere. Charismatic leadership and the influence on people
Hi, FMN – Welcome!
Thank you for these ideas. I’m not familiar with any of these cases except Manson a little. I will discuss these with Joe. Much appreciated.
-Kristin K
I like all of your suggestions – and have added them to the list of topics that we track daily and do research about as time permits.