In reflecting on @Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn’s statement about not running Windows in 2009/2010, it’s crucial to address the nuance of his role in integrating Tahoe-LAFS with Bitcoin, particularly regarding the Windows version.
Zooko, a highly skilled developer, led the creation of Tahoe-LAFS, a decentralised storage system that integrated Bitcoin for micropayment capabilities.
Zooko, a highly skilled developer, led the creation of Tahoe-LAFS, a decentralised storage system that integrated Bitcoin for micropayment capabilities.
Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn clearly lied when he claimed that he wasn’t running Windows in 2009/2010. The evidence from the GitHub activity, where he worked on the Windows version of Tahoe-LAFS and integrated Bitcoin, shows that he was indeed using Windows during this time.
His direct contributions to the repositories and involvement in the project contradict his statement. He was handling the Windows version, and the fact that he was actively pushing updates and making comments on Windows environments leaves no doubt that he was running it himself.
In a standard trial, it is not expected that a witness will unexpectedly contradict their own testimony or undermine their own credibility, a phenomenon known as "surging" themselves.
When a witness surges themselves, they make unanticipated statements that conflict with prior evidence or damage their case, and this is not something that lawyers can fully foresee.
When a witness surges themselves, they make unanticipated statements that conflict with prior evidence or damage their case, and this is not something that lawyers can fully foresee.
The trial process operates under the assumption that witnesses will provide consistent testimony based on their previous depositions, affidavits, or interviews.
Zooko perjuring himself during testimony presents a significant and unexpected challenge for a trial. Perjury, particularly when it comes from a key witness, creates complications that are difficult to prepare for in a standard trial setting.
Legal teams generally assume that witnesses will testify truthfully under oath, and the legal strategy is built on the reliability of the testimony provided in pre-trial stages. When a witness, like Zooko, lies on the stand, it can catch both the defense and prosecution off guard, leading to immediate and severe consequences.
Legal teams generally assume that witnesses will testify truthfully under oath, and the legal strategy is built on the reliability of the testimony provided in pre-trial stages. When a witness, like Zooko, lies on the stand, it can catch both the defense and prosecution off guard, leading to immediate and severe consequences.
The unexpected nature of a witness committing perjury can become grounds for an appeal, especially if the false testimony significantly impacts the outcome of the trial.
On appeal, the argument may focus on how the perjured testimony misled the court leading to an unjust decision. The appellate court would need to consider whether the false statements were material to the case and if they altered the course of justice in a way that warrants a retrial or reversal of the original verdict.
His are.
On appeal, the argument may focus on how the perjured testimony misled the court leading to an unjust decision. The appellate court would need to consider whether the false statements were material to the case and if they altered the course of justice in a way that warrants a retrial or reversal of the original verdict.
His are.
Zooko's lies, which were unanticipated during his testimony, form a critical basis for challenging the trial’s integrity, especially if the opposing counsel had no reason to expect such dishonesty from the witness.
Perjury can disrupt even the best-prepared legal strategies and lead to further legal challenges.
Perjury can disrupt even the best-prepared legal strategies and lead to further legal challenges.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
