On Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:48:04 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article >,
says...


Uh, no. She can testify to the fact that she talked to him, and to what
she heard over the phone, but not to what he *saw*, since she didn't see it
herself. IOW, she can't say who walked up to whom, or who threw the first
punch, etc. Anything she tries like that would be considered hearsay and
inadmissable in court. And, the interviews don't have the same "rules" as
courtroom testimony, so she won't be allowed to guess at what was going on
like she did in the interviews.

Got this stuff clear in your head yet?

Holy ****! First you say that it's hearsay if there's no physical
evidence,

Holy **** is right! I never said that.

then you say it's hearsay only if it's first person,

Never said that either. It has to be first person to NOT be hearsay. You can't repeat what someone else told you they saw.

then you say that not hearsay because she didn't *SEE* anything!!!!

Wow. Never said that, but did say it *was* hearsay for her to testify about things she didn't see firsthand.

You are either intentionally acting retarded, or you are. Have a nice day.