Neil wrote: > How many lies did Ken Hoden tell at the Henson trial?
>
> 1. He lied about the shooting by the ex-scientologist in Portland.
> a) The lady's baby did not die.
> b) The so called "critic" as an ex-scientologist.
> c) There is no proof he ever read ARS.
> d) He believed he was owned money.
> e) Were was and is no connection between Mr. Henson and this
> event.
>
> add the additional lies here
>
> Why did the DA put a person on the stand that he knew was going to
> lie? The DA saw the documents that show that scientologists believe
> lying is ok as long as it suits their needs. Why was Ken added as a
> new "victim" at the last minute? Did the DA believe that he was
> better prepared to lie then the other "victims"?
>
> Please post the transcripts as so as possible. The members of ARS
> should be able to quickly document the lies told by Ken Hoden. If the
> DA still does not act when shown the truth, the ACLU, the FBI or the
> appeals court should find the documents interesting.
>
> A conviction based on lies is not a conviction, but a perversion of
> justice.
>
> Neil
Well, if your going to perform this task you should at least remember that a charge of perjury can only be sustained *IF* you can prove at least two things: 1. That the testimony given was knowingly false. This can be demonstrated by providing proof of prior knowledge. Mere speculation is not proof. BTW, it is not enough to say for instance that the events in Oregon were misstated by Hoden, you must prove he knew the correct information (documents or testimony) to be incorrect AND 2. There is an element of materiality. If the lies he told on the witness stand are not consequential, that is, they don't directly relate to the charges against Keith, no charge will be brought. For example, if he lied about the events in Oregon, but the court believes that the actual events, even if truthfully reported, would not have materially benefited Keith's case, the perjury would have no effect upon the outcome and no charge could be brought. Perjury is a much discussed subject, but is a charge the is very rarely brought even under circumstance were it is clear that the witness told a lot of lies, but told the truth about the most important subject matter. HTH, Steve