On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 8:14:57 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 2:05:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >Hearsay is not evidence.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EsmSTNi5wLU/m/dT4dlX5hAAAJ
Unless it's hearsay coming from anyone who interrogated Oswald, or from Marina Oswald or anyone who can add to Oswald's guilt.
Then apparently, the rules of evidence change and it IS evidence.
Poor Gil. His correspondence law school never explained hearsay to him. I will fill in the void
by providing Gil with the definition:
hear·say
[ˈhirˌsā]
NOUN
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor:
"according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
SIMILAR:
rumor
gossip
tittle-tattle
tattle
report
stories
tales
LAW
the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law:
"everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay" · "the admissibility of hearsay evidence"
A person cannot testify to what they heard someone else had witnessed. What a suspect says
can be used against him. Since the Miranda ruling came out several years after the assassination,
a person's words can be used against him only if he has been advised of his rights. Under Texas
law at the time, Marina probably could not have testified against her husband in court about
things he told her he had done. However, the WC was not bound by spousal privilege. There
was no reason they could not have considered her testimony about things she witnessed her
husband said and did. If he told her he had shot at Walker, that would not be hearsay. If he told
her he saw somebody else shoot at Walker, that would be hearsay if Marina was the one saying
that. I don't suppose Gil can understand the difference.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)