The value of bought testimony

“Police’s turn to answer questions on state’s witnesses” (July 23) addresses the use of state’s witnesses in the prosecution of criminal cases.

I find it shocking and inexplicable that the prosecution can bring a case of bribery with no money changing hands while, when the police pay for testimony with intimidation, threats and or promises, that it should in no way be considered bribing the witness.

Why is that? Well the article explains, “There are some cases where people in power are simply not reachable without flipping one of their lieutenants to testify against them in exchange for an immunity deal” or in exchange for not publicly humiliating them or for not going after their family members.

Is it really “All’s fair in love and prosecution?” If someone is unreachable by the police, if I understand correctly, the police may use whatever dirty tricks they have, not necessarily to get to the truth, but to elicit the kind of testimony that they want.

The article further points out (as if it isn’t already completely apparent) that such witnesses are “almost invariably lawbreakers (read criminals) and liars (read perjurers) How in the world can such witnesses in any way be considered reliable? The very fact that Israeli law does not allow the court to convict on the basis of such evidence alone, should reveal its worthlessness.

If a case has insufficient evidence or is not strong enough to be proven without “bought” testimony, it should be dropped forthwith in the interest of justice. YEHUDIT LIPNER

Jerusalem