During the courtroom scene, one of the barristers (the one defending Sean Miller, I think) asks Ryan if he works for the CIA. Why would the lawyer ask him this? What impact could that have had on the trial?
share[deleted]
The problem with this explanation is it contradicts the barrister's previous line of questioning where he was trying to show that Jack's actions weren't premeditated because he had no idea what was going on (and hence shot at the wrong people)!
share[deleted]
It could be that the barrister was asking if Ryan had worked for the CIA to see if he had any previous firearms training. Even if Ryan tended to be someone who worked behind the scenes, he would still have learned to use a gun. I believe the same barrister is trying to prove that Ryan's actions weren't premeditated, so him being former CIA could show why he was able to use a weapon effectively, even if he was just a bystander.
Can't be too careful with all those weirdos running around.
Try the elephant in the room reason.
It is asked with the sole purpose of revealing publicly that he works for the CIA. People can go to gaol in the USA if they do that.
My understanding has always been that the barrister knew SOMETHING of Ryan's involvement within the CIA but not exactly what. He was winging it. If the answer was truthfully "no", then the defence barrister has neither gained nor lost anything. If the answer had been truthfully "Yes", then this would open to door to the scandal of US Agents performing executions on British soil. If Ryan HAD been working for the CIA, and said "No", then he'd have been committing perjury.
Both of the latter scenarios would have been detrimental to the prosecution case and that barrister knew it, hence why he took a chance and asked the question.
In reality that question would never come up in a UK Court and if it did it would be done in secret as it is today. Plus the trial came about very quickly.
shareYeah, couldn't the prosecutor object, or even though Ryan is under oath, is there not some sort of thing he could invoke, that he is not allowed to give out that information?
sharePerhaps trying to aim at Ryan’s credibility or motive? If he is no longer at the CIA, then they could inquire about why? Did he perform any misconduct, for example? Or being in the CIA would offer a claim that he was trained with weapons and, maybe, a little trigger happy?
share