All hail the plight of the document...

'Evidential documents are competent witnesses as surely as are their authors. Though silent, they need not remain inarticulate. Because inanimate, they need enjoy no immunity from question. Documents are personal word pictures, intimate brain-children of their authors. Like their authors, they are in turn virtuous and authentic, then evil and spurious. Unless questioned, they sometimes mislead, lie, cheat, and travel incognito. If questioned, they usually will tell the truth of their authorship and history.

Frequently, evidential documents are misapprehended simply because they have remained totally unquestioned. Intermittently, they are ignored when they fairly shriek for a hearing. Too often, they are forced to stand mute when they have much to tell. Occasionally, they are misinterpreted by unskilled and bungling questions. But unswervingly they stand ready to unmask the guilty, to exonerate the falsely accused, and to uphold the truth because their very inanimacy does not permit them partisanship or dishonor.’ – Conway, 1959, p.1

I'm considering memorizing this and offering it up anytime anyone asks me what I do…I wonder how this would sound in court ;)