When I first caught him in inconsistencies, rather than build it up like I said I would ordinarily do, I actually would underplay it.  I would say, “Oh, General Westmoreland, you said this.  Now that just seems to me a little inconsistent with this document.  I’m sure there’s an explanation.  Can you tell me what the explanation is?”  So I would go through that until — and I did that for a entire day before I really began to pick up the pace, because I wanted the jury to become uncomfortable.  And you could just tell, from the way the jurors would look and they’d shift, that his explanations just didn’t hold water.  And they understood that. So once they began to understand that he was not being completely accurate in his testimony, you could begin to push him a little harder.  One of the critical points in the examination was — this happened after I had built up, I think, some credibility with the jury, and I had undermined the general’s credibility — I asked him whether he had not consciously attempted to convey an optimistic picture, and he said he had not. And I said, “Well General, you certainly went around telling people that there was light at the end of the tunnel.  Didn’t you do that?”  And he said, “Absolutely not. I wouldn’t do that, because it wasn’t true, and that’s too optimistic, and I would never have said that.” So now I did build it up, because I had a cable from him to Maxwell Taylor saying, “I can now tell you that there’s light at the end of the tunnel.”  So once that came out — and it was even more important than — it had to be, because if he had simply said, “Yes, I was optimistic.  I believed we were winning,” or if he had simply said, “Yes, I said there was light at the end of the tunnel because I thought there was.” But when he said, “I would never say that.  It’s not true,” and then you confronted him, that was a really devastating consequence. And he ultimately just dropped his lawsuit without any payment or any compensation.