Thanks for the comment.

A lawyer who followed the “never ask a question that you don’t know the answer to” dogma would never have gone down this line of questioning. Richard’s style — making the point (that the witness is a liar) a thousand different ways — lends itself particularly well to exploring the unknown answers.

As to the second and third questions being statements. . . is there a rule that a cross-examination question has to end with a rising intonation? If so, I’ve cross-examined lots of witnesses without asking a single question.

He may not have known the answers but they were all none risk questions. The second’question’ was a statement. So was the third. Both were bound to be denied, but if they weren’t no harm would be done. The fourth question was irrelevant in the sense that it didn’t commit him to go further. The fifth was the start of an explanation that could only assist him. If the witness had said his Mother did know about the crime then the attorney refused to allow a witness to give perjured evidence.

I would say myself that the ability to pick out the no risk ‘win either way’ line of cross-examination is the best thing about this extract. Following your instincts is fine – if they’re good instincts!