I awake to that noisy toy on the floor beside her bed again. I observe it’s still dark outside as I climb over her face to assume my position at the window. The birds will come soon.
But while the birds are still sleeping, she leaves the room in slow motion and returns minutes later, frantically filling the room with false light. I remember my rations are low – due to my penchant for snacking in the dark – so I intercept her at the desk. Alas, it is too late. I come face-to-face with the blinding white light of her other toy, The Screen. Its power over her is so great that it can hypnotise her for hours. I have no choice but to wait.
About a month ago I signed up for World Vision’s 40 Hour Famine and weighed my options of either giving up food or technology for my campaign. I’ve probably accidentally starved myself for 40 hours during a Suits marathon, so the answer was obvious: technology was much more dear to me.
Failing is hard. Whether it’s an assignment, an exam, or a whole subject, failing might make you think that you should never be a lawyer. Failure for some people could even mean not getting the high mark that they expected they would. Failure does not mean you cannot be a lawyer though, and here are some reasons why…
If you’re learning witness examination, preparing for a mock trial or dreaming of becoming a criminal lawyer, you’ve probably read a few sample cross-examinations. While these basic introductions are a good start, they’re usually hypothetical, and it’s rare to see an example cover more than a few sample questions and answers. But Dan Howard’s book R v Milat: A Case Study in Cross-Examination, abandons these law school hypotheticals and gives readers a trial-side seat at one of Australia’s most notorious murder cases.