It now appears that we will never learn how a person who claims to presently have total amnesia could have testified in his own defense about complicated events from years ago.
Allen Stanford's lawyers reportedly promised in their opening statements in his criminal trial that the jury would hear from Stanford, but the defense rested its case today without ever calling Stanford as a witness. Although Stanford supposedly wanted to testify, he was persuaded otherwise by his lawyers. A Reuters article today points out that testifying would have placed his "credibility with the jury on the line" and might also have put Stanford's "fiery temper to the test." This is no doubt true, but again I ask: what about the amnesia Stanford claimed to have in December 2011 concerning all "personal life events or business dealings that predated the head trauma he sustained" in September 2009???