|
|
| |
| |
Sir Cumference <radiodaze@mailcity.moc> wrote in news:Jpidndo4dMydSYfcRVn-
ig@gbronline.com:
Lil' Bobby Gortician wrote:
Just the goofy stuff you and Eastman see in them that isn't there.
Like what, moron?
American Airlines 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
ASCE Report Proves 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more
Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
action=intro
|
| |
| |
Sir Cumference <radiodaze@mailcity.moc> wrote in
news:JpidndY4dMxCS4fcRVn-ig@gbronline.com:
AbsolutelyCertain wrote:
Along with a signed statement from the victum's remains.
What victims?
No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
ASCE Report Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more
Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
action=intro
|
| |
| |
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:BTR1702-A5BCDE.23141611082004
@news.west.earthlink.net:
In article <Xns9542D13DFD780spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>, "Lil'
Bobby Gortician" <master@mason.snuh> wrote:
I'm a lawyer, dumbass. I know very well what it means. You're the one
who seems to need a refresher course.
Oh, yes. Everyone's a lawyer.
because the
court rightly recognizes that any photograph can be manipulated to
show
just about anything.
Try again.
So now you're suggesting that all of the Pentagon photographs on the web
have been tampered with? Did the ASCE tamper with their photos?
I think it's quite clear that I'm not suggesting anything about any
particular photograph.
I was speaking about photographs in general. That's perfectly obvious to
anyone with even a moderate ability to read and comprehend.
You might want to find a discussion about abstract concepts, then. Try
rec.photo.digital.
No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
ASCE Report Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more
Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
action=intro
|
| |
| |
TR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:BTR1702-CADFD5.23161611082004
@news.west.earthlink.net:
In article <Xns9542D0FC57079spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>, "Lil'
Bobby Gortician" <master@mason.snuh> wrote:
I don't understand what it means in your special little world, true
enough. I do know what it means out here in the real world with everyone
else.
"Hearsay" is a stunningly poor word choice to apply to photographs, don't
you think?
If one batch of hearsay reports isn't credible because it's hearsay,
what makes your hearsay any more credible than theirs?
In what sense are photographs hearsay?
If they haven't been legally validated by the photographer under oath,
they are hearsay.
So you invented a hypothetical situation?
Westlaw, anyway, says you're wrong.
http://lawschool.westlaw.com/Garland/HearsayQuestions2.htm#104
105. To prove the license number of the car involved in a hit-run accident,
P offers a photograph of a retreating automobile bearing the license plate
EE2468 and the testimony of a woman that, though she cannot now remember
the number of the car, she did know it at the time and that she took the
photograph offered in evidence of the accident car as it left the scene.
Exception(s)? [Answer]
105. This is not hearsay. There is no evidence of a statement. A photograph
is not a statement.
Wow, so goes Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+hearsay&sourceid=opera&num=100
&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Definitions of hearsay on the Web:
gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of
mouth
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay information"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
Statements by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in question
but heard about it from someone else. Hearsay is usually not admissible as
evidence in court.
www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/kidspage/glossary.html
Any evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct
knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to
them. For example, if Bob heard from Susan about an accident that Susan
witnessed but that Bob had not, and Bob attempted to repeat Susan's story
in court, it could be objected to as "hearsay." The basic rule, when
testifying in court, is that you can only provide information of which you
have direct knowledge. In other words, hearsay evidence is not allowed.
Hearsay evidence is also referred to as "second-hand evidence" or as
"rumor." You are able to tell a court what you heard, to repeat the rumor,
and testify that, in fact, the story you heard was told to you, but under
the hearsay rule, your testimony would not be evidence of the actual facts
of the story but only that you heard those words spoken.
www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-gh.htm
Information given to a witness by another person. The witness did not see
the information first hand. The witness does not have personal knowledge of
the original event. Hearsay is not admissible in court.
www.saskjustice.gov.sk.ca/courts/court_terms/court_terms.shtml
(RWT) Statements by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in
question but heard about it from someone else. Hearsay is usually not
admissible as evidence in court.
www.bungi.com/cfip/glossary/glostext.htm
Testimony intended to be proof of the truth of a statement, arising not
from personal knowledge or experience of the witness but from repetition of
what the witness has heard others say; such testimony is generally not
admitted into evidence.
www.co.fresno.ca.us/2810/Glossary/glossary.htm
hearsay is the word used to describe the kind of evidence where one person
is recounting to the court what they heard another person, who may not be
present in the court, say or what they were told (but did not see
themselves) that another person had done. Usually, hearsay evidence is held
either not to be admissible or that if admissible, less weight is attached
to it than to other more direct evidence.
www.mylawyer.com/glossary.htm
Evidence based on what the witness has heard someone else say, rather than
what the witness has personally experienced or observed.
www.court.state.nd.us/Court/Glossary.htm
A statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the
trial or hearing offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted. "Hearsay evidence" is evidence of a statement that was made other
than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to
prove the truth of the matter stated.
www.co.shelby.tn.us/county_gov/court_clerks/criminal_court/glossary.html
Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness.
www.indygov.org/courts/glossary.htm
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates,
not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has
heard said by others. The very nature of the evidence shows its weakness,
and, as such, hearsay evidence is generally indadmissable unless it falls
within one of the many exceptions which provides for admissibility.
www.the3rdjudicialdistrict.com/glossary.htm
Any evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct
knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to
them. For example, if Bob heard from Susan about an accident that Susan
witnessed but that Bob had not, and Bob attempted to repeat Susan's story
in court, it could be objected to as "hearsay." The basic rule, when
testifying in court, is that you can only provide information of which you
have direct knowledge. In other words, hearsay evidence is not allowed.
Hearsay evidence is also
|
| |
| |
In article <Xns9542E6310E44spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>, "Lil'
Bobby Gortician" <master@mason.snuh> wrote:
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:BTR1702-CADFD5.23161611082004
@news.west.earthlink.net:
"Hearsay" is a stunningly poor word choice to apply to photographs, don't
you think?
Yes, someone who has no legal training might think so.
If one batch of hearsay reports isn't credible because it's hearsay,
what makes your hearsay any more credible than theirs?
In what sense are photographs hearsay?
If they haven't been legally validated by the photographer under oath,
they are hearsay.
So you invented a hypothetical situation?
It's a legal reality.
105. To prove the license number of the car involved in a hit-run
accident, P offers a photograph of a retreating automobile bearing
the license plate EE2468 and the testimony of a woman that,
though she cannot now remember the number of the car, she did
know it at the time and that she took the photograph offered
in evidence of the accident car as it left the scene.
Exception(s)? [Answer]
105. This is not hearsay. There is no evidence of a statement. A
photograph is not a statement.
Wrong. It's not hearsay because she validated the photograph under oath.
|
| |
| |
In article <Xns9542E4D31BCF6spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>, "Lil'
Bobby Gortician" <master@mason.snuh> wrote:
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:BTR1702-A5BCDE.23141611082004
@news.west.earthlink.net:
Oh, yes. Everyone's a lawyer.
Ah, so now you're dismissing me as a liar also. Apparently anyone who
doesn't agree with everything you say is a liar and a conspirator.
Everyone may not be a lawyer but you're certainly a member in good
standing of the grand pantheon of Usenet lunatics.
So now you're suggesting that all of the Pentagon photographs on the
web have been tampered with? Did the ASCE tamper with their photos?
I think it's quite clear that I'm not suggesting anything about any
particular photograph.
I was speaking about photographs in general. That's perfectly obvious
to anyone with even a moderate ability to read and comprehend.
You might want to find a discussion about abstract concepts, then.
No, thanks. I'll stay right here whether you like it or not.
|
| |
| |
In article <Xns9542E1071D716spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>, "Lil'
Bobby Gortician" <master@mason.snuh> wrote:
Sir Cumference <radiodaze@mailcity.moc> wrote in
news:JpidndY4dMxCS4fcRVn-ig@gbronline.com:
Along with a signed statement from the victum's remains.
What victims?
My sister-in-law's father, for one.
|
| |
| |
I think you are a lawyer and a dumbass and a crossposting dweeb and teh
famous turd that pretends to be a man. Learn to keep your inanities in your
own inane forums.
In article <Xns9542E4D31BCF6spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>, "Lil'
Bobby Gortician" <master@mason.snuh> wrote:
Ah, so now you're dismissing me as a liar also. Apparently anyone who
doesn't agree with everything you say is a liar and a conspirator.
Everyone may not be a lawyer but you're certainly a member in good
standing of the grand pantheon of Usenet lunatics.
So now you're suggesting that all of the Pentagon photographs on the
web have been tampered with? Did the ASCE tamper with their photos?
I think it's quite clear that I'm not suggesting anything about any
particular photograph.
I was speaking about photographs in general. That's perfectly obvious
to anyone with even a moderate ability to read and comprehend.
No, thanks. I'll stay right here whether you like it or not.
|
| |
| |
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:BTR1702-7B7926.16482712082004
@news.west.earthlink.net:
In article <Xns9542E0DA6EC5Fspamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>, "Lil'
Bobby Gortician" <master@mason.snuh> wrote:
So all the eyewitness testimoiny on Eastman's site is just hearsay
evidence. Just stuff off a third-party web page.
So his "hearsay" says, right?
So, according to your definition (that can't be found on the web) ALL
evidence, physical or otherwise, is hearsay?
No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
ASCE Report Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more
Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro
|
| |
| |
"Lil' Bobby Gortician" <master@mason.snuh> wrote in message news:<Xns9542E4D31BCF6spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17>...
BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:BTR1702-A5BCDE.23141611082004
@news.west.earthlink.net:
Oh, yes. Everyone's a lawyer.
whereas you are stupid cunt
|
| |
| |
In article <MURSc.252300$2o2.14767764@twister.southeast.rr.com>, "Tony
Spadaro" <tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
I think you are a lawyer and a dumbass and a crossposting dweeb and teh
famous turd that pretends to be a man.
Who cares?
|
| |
| |
|
