Couldn’t you arrange for some false testimony or something?

EBS2.jpgAfter last week’s fireworks in the ongoing Enron Broadband criminal trial noted here and here, the Chronicle’s Mary Flood reports that the attorneys in the trial have reverted to the dubious tactic of chloroforming the jury with mind-numbing techno-jargon:

On the stand Tuesday was jargon-dependent computer specialist John Bloomer. It was his third day of testimony, and for most of morning he was questioned by Enron Task Force prosecutor Ben Campbell.
Campbell took Bloomer through statement after statement made at a critical January 2000 Enron conference for stock analysts to ask about the truth of what was said.
It was no more exciting in the afternoon when defense attorney Per Ramfjord took over. Ramfjord is so well-versed in technology that the courtroom can become Silicon Valley when he gets going with a geeky witness. Bloomer sometimes answered enthusiastically with something like: “We were late. Whether it be MPLS over ATM, whether it be precedent bit over IP.” Don’t ask.

So the jurors and alternates, if they’ve stayed fully awake, know what a hop and a POP are in the tech world, may know the difference between quality of service and quality of stream delivery, and likely know what media cast and media transport are.

Meanwhile, Ms. Flood also reports that some of Mr. Bloomer’s testimony yesterday on behalf of the prosecution in the Broadband trial was helpful to the defense of former Enron CEO, Jeff Skilling, whose criminal trial with former Enron chairman Ken Lay and former Enron chief accountant Richard Causey on securities fraud and related charges is scheduled for January 2006.

One thought on “Couldn’t you arrange for some false testimony or something?

Leave a Reply