It’s quite remarkable to witness a person erode their own credibility through their direct testimony. Before even reaching a crucial juncture, the judge has had to intervene and instruct the individual to answer the questions posed by their own attorney.
The jury is closely observing these developments.
Thus far, what stands out from Bankman-Fried’s testimony is his evident penchant for speaking at length. The frequency of “Objection, narrative!” responses to his answers, followed by the judge’s “Sustained” rulings, has already reached three instances.
Additionally, it’s worth noting that when Bankman-Fried uses the term “we,” it doesn’t always encompass a collective but often refers solely to himself.
During an evidentiary hearing yesterday, Bankman-Fried faced repeated reprimands from Judge Lewis Kaplan for failing to provide direct answers to questions posed by prosecutor Danielle Sassoon during cross-examination. Today, he faced a similar situation when Judge Kaplan scolded him for not answering the questions from his own counsel, Mark Cohen, during direct examination. At times, Bankman-Fried even interrupted Cohen with brief affirmations like “yes” and “yup.”
A substantial portion of the morning was dedicated to explaining various vocabulary terms. While I won’t go into the full list, it’s worth noting that clarifying terms like “Amazon Web Services” and “database” was quite detailed. Bankman-Fried even attempted to define “market manipulation,” but Judge Kaplan stepped in, asserting his role as the ultimate authority on the matter.
To be fair to Bankman-Fried, his communication has been notably clearer and more coherent compared to his performance during the evidentiary hearing yesterday. There was far less verbal confusion today. It remains to be seen whether this clarity will persist when prosecutor Danielle Sassoon begins her cross-examination. a person erode
The narrative that follows is Bankman-Fried’s account of the story of FTX from his perspective.