re: This freeze briarcrest thing is BS

I'm cool baby....I'm not defensive. lol I just see through your simple mindset and its funny.

Although, I will say...It is scary you think the way you do and exist on this planet with me. Hahaha

quote:

---

Although, I will say...It is scary you think the way you do and exist on this planet with me. Hahaha

---

I know it's scary when people tell you the truth when it contradicts your own beliefs. It's ok. You will get through it. And if you don't? Well, who the frick cares. You are insignificant to the universe.

quote:

---

Lolz it's really fun arguing with simple minded folks like yourself. I mean that..

---

There's some irony here.

Someone want to point it out for him?

quote:

---

You thought the Duke lacrosse players were guilty too, huh?

Or the countless other times a high profile figure was dragged through the mud after the first domino fell only for the accusers to be proved liars...

---

Were the Duke lacrosse players and other high profile figures in question coming off of a forced resignation that started with a call placed to an escort service and was subsequently based on a "pattern of behavior" deemed bad and evident enough to violate a morality clause in a $5 million contract? Because that set of circumstances arouses suspicion and removes benefit of the doubt for subsequent allegations.

quote:

---

That all religions are bullshite

---

Well, that's kinda silly - to say you know you're right, about something you have limited knowledge of. What percent of the information contained in the universe do you and I know? A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage, maybe. And perhaps one of those religions is a part of the truth contained in that infinite universe you have no knowledge of.

That's not exactly true, either. If the victim is on the stand as a witness, then the victim's personal account is not hearsay. If the victim is on the stand testifying about what the defendant told her, that's also not hearsay. If the victim's personal account is not being used by a proponent to prove the truth of the matter asserted, then that's not hearsay. Hearsay is not a blanket term that applies to all out of court statements.

My initial statement was to point out that using the word hearsay to refer to these women's facebook posts is straight up dumb. The term doesn't hold any meaning unless you're referring to a specific piece of testimony given by a witness on the stand. We could get into semantics about how not every statement made out of court is hearsay because, for one, the out of court statement has to be used by a party to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and two, there are plenty of exclusions to the hearsay rule that could apply to any given out of court statement.

But all that is beside the point. Even if you want to stretch the meaning of hearsay to apply to a situation outside of a trial setting, then this would most certainly not be the case in which to use it. The term was initially used in this thread to refer to women who were giving personal accounts of which they claim to have firsthand knowledge. These aren't "I heard rumors that..." kind of statements.

I see where you're getting that as it is the first thing wiki addresses but you're missing a big part of it (will bold that portion for emphasis):

Per wiki:

quote:

---

Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of matter asserted therein".

---

IOW, there's direct testimony from witnesses (not hearsay), However, evidence often comes from out of court and indirectly (so-and-so told me that he/she did x or y happened) from third parties. The courts that accept hearsay testimony often do so to get to the heart of the truth whether that comes from the defendants friends/fam etc. or the victims. If it's an appropriate timeline it is often admitted. Once admitted it's no longer hearsay tho. However good attorneys will argue the credibility of such things and attempt to have it quashed before it's presented.

Not all hearsay evidence makes it into trial. As mentioned by another poster, it's complicated. However, both hearsay evidence and circumstantial evidence forms a ginormous chunk of many legal cases. People are convicted on those two things alone ALL the time -- and I don't mean hearsay that is backed by victim testimony but rather hearsay in which no one directly there is around to confirm it.

If you wanna call it hearsay simply because court isn't in session I gotta say I think you're guilty of playing semantics -- most aren't thinking in those terms when hearsay is brought up but rather in terms of it if went to trial what would it be.

quote:

---

That's not exactly true, either. If the victim is on the stand as a witness, then the victim's personal account is not hearsay. If the victim is on the stand testifying about what the defendant told her, that's also not hearsay. If the victim's personal account is not being used by a proponent to prove the truth of the matter asserted, then that's not hearsay. Hearsay is not a blanket term that applies to all out of court statements.

---

I included the gist of that in an earlier post I believe. Essentially, broadly speaking - if the victim isn't in court, then the statements are considered hearsay. No?

Yep.