On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:34:34 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article >,
says...
>
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:38:46 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
>
> >
> > Of course, notice I said the witnesses that said the HEARD Zimmerman
> > screaming.....
>
> That's still direct testimony of what they heard. It's not hearsay. If a person testified that someone else had told them they heard the screams, that's hearsay, if trying to prove the screaming actually happened.

Oh, so if someone states that they heard something, it's not hearsay?
Good! So the girlfriend's interview answers aren't hearsay! That's what
I've been saying all along.

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?

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:34:34 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article >,
says...
>
> On Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:38:46 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
>
> >
> > Of course, notice I said the witnesses that said the HEARD Zimmerman
> > screaming.....
>
> That's still direct testimony of what they heard. It's not hearsay. If a person testified that someone else had told them they heard the screams, that's hearsay, if trying to prove the screaming actually happened.

Oh, so if someone states that they heard something, it's not hearsay?
Good! So the girlfriend's interview answers aren't hearsay! That's what
I've been saying all along.

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, then you say it's hearsay only if it's first person, then you
say that not hearsay because she didn't *SEE* anything!!!!

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.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:40:16 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


It is unusual

Bull****!

cite ;-)

Sure thing!

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v8/n1/4/

http://www.benchmarkinstitute.org/t_...ntroducing.htm

http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-...w-trial-newly-
discovered-evidence.html

Do you actually read the links you post?

The first one was not even a US court, the second one tells you how yo
introduce evidence in the preliminary hearing (way before the trial)
and he 3d is talking about a new trial.

Nope, not a new trial.

On Friday, July 27, 2012 12:01:40 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:49:12 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,

says...



On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:40:16 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:





It is unusual



Bull****!



cite ;-)



Sure thing!



http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v8/n1/4/



http://www.benchmarkinstitute.org/t_...ntroducing.htm



http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-...w-trial-newly-

discovered-evidence.html



Do you actually read the links you post?



The first one was not even a US court, the second one tells you how yo

introduce evidence in the preliminary hearing (way before the trial)

and he 3d is talking about a new trial.



Nope, not a new trial.



The words "new trial" are even in the URL.

It's become apparent that he has a reading comprehension issue.

In article ,
says...

On Friday, July 27, 2012 12:01:40 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:49:12 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,

says...



On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:40:16 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:





It is unusual



Bull****!



cite ;-)



Sure thing!



http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v8/n1/4/



http://www.benchmarkinstitute.org/t_...ntroducing.htm



http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-...w-trial-newly-

discovered-evidence.html



Do you actually read the links you post?



The first one was not even a US court, the second one tells you how yo

introduce evidence in the preliminary hearing (way before the trial)

and he 3d is talking about a new trial.



Nope, not a new trial.



The words "new trial" are even in the URL.

It's become apparent that he has a reading comprehension issue.

It's been apparent that you are a condescending asshole.

On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:31:31 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...

It's become apparent that he has a reading comprehension issue.


It's been apparent that you are a condescending asshole.

Nope, here's the "cite":

---------------------
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.
-----------------------

Among tons of other times where you simply don't understand what someone wrote, or your own linked cites which don't prove your point, but the opposite.

You have problems grasping the written word.