In the spirit of breaking the rules, the girls of the London neighborhood of Chelsea began in 1965 to shorten their outfits in different ways, but yes; always above the knee. They thus rebelled against what had been established as a dress code for the time. The miniskirt is said to have been created by British fashion designer Mary Quant, who was inspired by the tiny Mini Cooper born in the UK in 1959 as a result of the oil shortage caused by the Suez crisis. «The mini-car went perfectly with the miniskirt; He did everything you wanted, he looked great, he was optimistic, exuberant, young, flirtatious… all in his right measure », Quant declared in the documentary“ Mary Quant, Mini Cooper, Miniskirt ”. She herself would have expressed that in her youth she hooked her skirt up to show a “more interesting” appearance. Quant sold many miniskirts at her Bazaar boutique, which was located on King’s Road.
Andrés Courréges, a French designer pointed out that the true inventor of this garment had been him and not someone else. However, the version that gains more force is that the miniskirt was invented by the common girls of Chelsea who in the early 1960s wanted to look more interesting.
The mere fact of being short draws powerfully attention, so little fabric makes the wearer look attractive. All this invites us to discover more, to know what lies beyond, well, the tiny, the short, the small; makes it captivating.
So small, seductive, friendly and pleasant; they must be the speeches that the litigants interpret in the courtrooms. The only idea that the lawyer should have in mind is that his speech be interesting, as Mary Quant was at the time when she hooked her skirt up.
But, no matter how much you want to reduce a plea, there are three elements that are necessary, indispensable and essential to structure a dissertation that will be heard by the judges. These components must answer the question: What happened the day the crime materialized?
Thus, this short story must contain a factual element, that is, the one that accounts for what happened. And there you have to describe what happened – according to our version of events. The facts that give force to the position that the litigant represents at that time -accusation or defense- must be briefly, precisely and concisely outlined.
To do this, you have to make a fine selection of all the relevant facts, and then filter to indicate the most important of these. Once the above has been done, they must be arranged chronologically so that the judges understand it in an easy, coherent, simple and credible way.
However, no matter how summarized the version is in terms of the facts, this narrative must be able to answer the following questions: What happened? Who did it? Who did he do it to? As it did? When he did it? Where did he do it? What did he do it with? Why did he do it?
Once the above is satisfied, it seems that the lawyer has a good story; But litigants must not only tell compelling and powerful stories. They must have a way to prove everything they narrate, otherwise they will have an excellent story; but never a case.
To shield said narration, an indispensable element is the evidentiary element. This will serve to prove, -in the oral trial-, the factual propositions that have been formulated and must answer two questions, what do I want to demonstrate? and with what will I prove it?
These probative elements are the ones that will be used to prove what is being alleged and for this it is necessary to make use of the means of proof that link the evidence with the facts in a coherent, possible and credible way.
In order to prove everything that has been pointed out, it is necessary to take into account the various types of evidence such as material; the direct; the affirmative; that of refutation; the explanatory; the emotional or persuasive; the circumstantial or circumstantial and the credibility. The idea of making good use of the evidence is to provide the judges with a convincing point of view using strong, safe, clear and credible means of evidence.
Having clear the facts and having the means of proof, it is necessary to carry out the trial of subsumption or framing of the conduct within a certain article of the penal code or special law in question. And thus, it will be necessary to verify if the objective, subjective and normative elements of the criminal type that is considered executed are accredited. Once the criminal type has been selected where the conduct displayed fits perfectly, it will be necessary to provide the judge with a narrative that is as clear as possible so that there is no doubt that the active subject executed -or not- such criminal conduct.
These three necessary, essential and indispensable elements; they must be handed over to the judges just as good perfumes come, that is; in small jars.
And so, as the team that designed the Mini Cooper – which hypothetically inspired the birth of miniskirts – did in 1957; The trial lawyer must do it, that is, the legal professional must have the ability to locate all those elements in a reduced space of time so that his argument is “interesting” as was at the time everything that Mary Quant and the Chelsea girls.
An “interesting” speech from a trial lawyer should have not only the three elements previously described. In addition, it must be narrated between three and five minutes so that it is able to maintain the curiosity of the judge in what is being narrated.
Therefore, speeches in courtrooms must be short enough, –like miniskirts-For call the atention.
Andrés Courréges, a French designer pointed out that the true inventor of this garment had been him and not someone else. However, the version that gains more force is that the miniskirt was invented by the common girls of Chelsea who in the early 1960s wanted to look more interesting.
The mere fact of being short draws powerfully attention, so little fabric makes the wearer look attractive. All this invites us to discover more, to know what lies beyond, well, the tiny, the short, the small; makes it captivating.
So small, seductive, friendly and pleasant; they must be the speeches that the litigants interpret in the courtrooms. The only idea that the lawyer should have in mind is that his speech be interesting, as Mary Quant was at the time when she hooked her skirt up.
But, no matter how much you want to reduce a plea, there are three elements that are necessary, indispensable and essential to structure a dissertation that will be heard by the judges. These components must answer the question: What happened the day the crime materialized?
Thus, this short story must contain a factual element, that is, the one that accounts for what happened. And there you have to describe what happened – according to our version of events. The facts that give force to the position that the litigant represents at that time -accusation or defense- must be briefly, precisely and concisely outlined.
To do this, you have to make a fine selection of all the relevant facts, and then filter to indicate the most important of these. Once the above has been done, they must be arranged chronologically so that the judges understand it in an easy, coherent, simple and credible way.
However, no matter how summarized the version is in terms of the facts, this narrative must be able to answer the following questions: What happened? Who did it? Who did he do it to? As it did? When he did it? Where did he do it? What did he do it with? Why did he do it?
Once the above is satisfied, it seems that the lawyer has a good story; But litigants must not only tell compelling and powerful stories. They must have a way to prove everything they narrate, otherwise they will have an excellent story; but never a case.
To shield said narration, an indispensable element is the evidentiary element. This will serve to prove, -in the oral trial-, the factual propositions that have been formulated and must answer two questions, what do I want to demonstrate? and with what will I prove it?
These probative elements are the ones that will be used to prove what is being alleged and for this it is necessary to make use of the means of proof that link the evidence with the facts in a coherent, possible and credible way.
In order to prove everything that has been pointed out, it is necessary to take into account the various types of evidence such as material; the direct; the affirmative; that of refutation; the explanatory; the emotional or persuasive; the circumstantial or circumstantial and the credibility. The idea of making good use of the evidence is to provide the judges with a convincing point of view using strong, safe, clear and credible means of evidence.
Having clear the facts and having the means of proof, it is necessary to carry out the trial of subsumption or framing of the conduct within a certain article of the penal code or special law in question. And thus, it will be necessary to verify if the objective, subjective and normative elements of the criminal type that is considered executed are accredited. Once the criminal type has been selected where the conduct displayed fits perfectly, it will be necessary to provide the judge with a narrative that is as clear as possible so that there is no doubt that the active subject executed -or not- such criminal conduct.
These three necessary, essential and indispensable elements; they must be handed over to the judges just as good perfumes come, that is; in small jars.
And so, as the team that designed the Mini Cooper – which hypothetically inspired the birth of miniskirts – did in 1957; The trial lawyer must do it, that is, the legal professional must have the ability to locate all those elements in a reduced space of time so that his argument is “interesting” as was at the time everything that Mary Quant and the Chelsea girls.
An “interesting” speech from a trial lawyer should have not only the three elements previously described. In addition, it must be narrated between three and five minutes so that it is able to maintain the curiosity of the judge in what is being narrated.
Therefore, speeches in courtrooms must be short enough, –like miniskirts-For call the atention.
–
