Who is an international trial lawyer?

I'm Absalom's defense lawyer in a fake trial; who could I call as witnesses?

• The case is against Absalom for treason (2 Samuel 13 - 20). I really need help since I've changed my entire case to Absalom not MEANING to overthrow the crown (a previous student did this and got great marks) - i.e: he organised the army to show his father he was capable etc. only wanted to please his father - this works well as the judge and jury will be King David. So my argument is David and the others fled of their own accord, Absalom didn't attack them, Absalom is a good guy, etc. I'm calling Tamar as a character witness; Absalom was the only one who helped her, who gave her justice. I'm also calling one of the citizens who were at the gate when Absalom was there. They will testify as to Absalom's sense of justice, how beautiful he is (teacher said to include that, i know it's not really relevent) how the people of Israel, GOD'S PEOPLE, support him. I need you guys to help me sort of expand on the above and tell me if you agree with those witnesses. I also need one more witness to go with my contention. I thought of doing Ahitophel, since he is wise etc. and saw Absalom's sense of justice or whatever and that's why he changed sides, but every time I try to write it it sounds so weird. It will be in transcript form, but I'm not including the prosecution's questions since it'll just be too long (teacher said okay). I am however including the prosecution's opening and possibly closing. RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY PEOPLE: I understand you all have opinions etc. and you may think the bible is evil stupid false fake. But I need help with this evil stupid false fake story for my Religion SAC (exam) or I'm going to fail. I go to a catholic school BUT AM NOT CATHOLIC. Please don't spam . Thank you :)

• Answer:

  Well - Ahithophel is a good idea, particularly considering how wise he was (and was known to be) - but he died before the end of the rebellion. IF you are magically able to revive him for the trial, he could testify that everything that they were doing was not only for the good of the kingdom but also in the service of the king. He could claim that David misunderstood Absalom's intentions as you have already outlined, and that his primary job was not only advising Absalom on how to run the kingdom during David's absence, but also advising Absalom on how to return the rightful king (David) to the throne. Finally, he could claim that Hushai (David's "mole") was actually the traitor who persuaded Absalom to dither gathering troops (in preparation for some completely imaginary enemy) when Ahithophel had recommended to Absalom that they send out a search party to return David to the throne *immediately*. Ahithophel could claim that Hushai had given David inaccurate information from the very beginning and that *Hushai* was the true traitor, that he was trying to raise himself to the "power behind the throne" and take advantage of David's absence. Ahithophel could remark that Hushai had failed to report meeting with David or David's location after returning to Absalom so that Absalom could not send a message asking David to return! Yes- the Ahithophel angle works *extremely* well. One thing you're going to have troubles with is the concubine thing. You might be able to argue that Absalom having the right to David's concubines in public proved to the common people that Absalom had David's authority during David's absence. In other words, that it was to keep civil war from happening!!! A pretty sly argument, and Ahithophel can take credit for coming up with the idea that preserved the unity of the kingdom during David's absence. Along that line, it might be good to have a concubine or some retainer of Absalom's testify to that intent. It would be *really* persuasive if one of the concubines testified that Absalom had told her that was the reason he was availing himself of her; and Absalom might easily purchase such testimony with the promise of special treatment or even marriage in the future. Finally, you can use the testimony of any of David's retainers who survived the coup. Hushai himself was not killed by Absalom and so could be used to "prove" that Absalom was not attempting to kill anyone presumably loyal to David (but don't forget that Hushai is our prime scapegoat). Likewise Mephibosheth (who might have in fact been supporting Absalom in secret as his servant Ziba attested). Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com