In my defense

by **Sarutama** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> That's a strictly semantic distinction, in my book. I don't live in a courtroom, and I trust the eyes of a stranger even less than I trust my own.<hr></blockquote> My point, however poorly stated (my apologies, I'm at work and posting quickly) is that there is an inherent difference between someone who was there saying "I saw this..." and someone who wasn't saying "No, you couldn't have..." One relies on first hand experience while the other relies on secondary analysis of others testimony, evidence, etc. I'm not saying one is more reliable then the other, we all know how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be, just that they're different.

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Hmm. Oh well, at least you have an opinion about something ! Theres hope for a reasonable argument yet.<hr></blockquote> I have a lot of opinions, but that doesn't mean I should spew them everywhere willy-nilly for the sake of your amusement. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Gotta Dash. Fox news is starting. Id hate to miss my daily reality check.<hr></blockquote> Why don't you go outside, dig a hole in the dirt and crawl in? That would probably be better for you in the long run. I guess you can't really keep your watchful eyes on "the enemy" from down there, so that's no good -- right? "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>My point, however poorly stated (my apologies, I'm at work and posting quickly) is that there is an inherent difference between someone who was there saying "I saw this..." and someone who wasn't saying "No, you couldn't have..." One relies on first hand experience while the other relies on secondary analysis of others testimony, evidence, etc. I'm not saying one is more reliable then the other, we all know how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be, just that they're different.<hr></blockquote> Hey, I understand -- I'm at work too. I see your point, and you're right. I was just stating my opinion that the distinction is irrelevant, but your elaboration is far better than my offhand remark. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **Sarutama** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And no, there is no difference between eyewitness "testimony," which isn't really testimony at all in a legal sense, and the word of people who were nowhere near the incidents. That's not to say that people who were near the incident could not theoretically have their statements admissible, even though they constitute hearsay. But they'd have to fit into an exception or exemption that aren't present here for the most part. That means their statements that we have right now wouldn't be admissible evidence.<hr></blockquote> Eyewitness testimony of what the witness saw ("I saw a plane fly into a building") would not need any exemption to be admissable as evidence. It would simply be up to the opposing side to question the validity of the statement and the credibility of the witness. Hearsay would only come into play if the eyewitness testimony was something like "Frank told me he saw a plane fly into a building." Theres a big difference.

by **NewKid** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm not saying one is more reliable then the other, we all know how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be, just that they're different.<hr></blockquote> Yes, they are different in a descriptive sense. My point was simply that they would both be inadmissible hearsay in court, and for good reason.

by **NewKid** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Eyewitness testimony of what the witness saw ("I saw a plane fly into a building"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> would not need any exemption to be admissable as evidence. It would simply be up to the opposing side to question the validity of the statement and the credibility of the witness. Hearsay would only come into play if the eyewitness testimony was something like "Frank told me he saw a plane fly into a building." Theres a big difference. <hr></blockquote> Sure, but you're assuming the witness is under oath and subject to cross. Like in court or a tribunal. If there's been a trial where all of these out of court statements have been confirmed under oath and subject to cross, I've missed it. So the all of the out of court statements we've seen directly and certainly indirectly on message boards and in USA today and stuff don't come in, unless the witness testifies. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 4/13/06 12:28 pm

by **Sarutama** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sure, but you're assuming the witness is under oath and subject to cross. Like in court or a tribunal. If there's been a trial where all of these out of court statements have been confirmed under oath and subject to cross, I've missed it. So the statements on message boards and in USA today and stuff don't come in, unless the witness testifies.<hr></blockquote> Well, yeah. Clearly statements made on a message board aren't worth the imaginary paper they are electronically printed on (mine included as I am overly opinionated and prone to ranting about things I know very little about which, I would hazard to guess, goes for about 99% of the internet community). My point was, that if a trial were to occur, and they could find the person that said "I saw a, b, & c" then they would we be allowed to testiy as such without any hearsay exemption being neccessary. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sarutama@rigorousintuition>Sarutama</A> at: 4/13/06 12:32 pm

by **NewKid** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:34 pm

that's right. And it makes you wonder why people are basing their conclusions on statements they've seen on the internet or in the newspaper.

by **Sarutama** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:42 pm

Well, to be fair, people are basing their opinions on the only information they have available to them, which is what has been in newspapers, on the internet, etc. While that realistically adds up to precisely dick in the grand scheme of things, there really isn't any other way to form an opinion.

by **NewKid** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>While that realistically adds up to precisely dick in the grand scheme of things, there really isn't any other way to form an opinion. <hr></blockquote> That's right again. But why then have opinions like "I'm certain that . . ." about 9-11, when you can't be certain at all?

by **Sarutama** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That's right again. But why then have opinions like "I'm certain that . . ." about 9-11, when you can't be certain at all?<hr></blockquote> Exaclty. Anyone that speaks about any conspiracy theory with absolute certainty is either completely delusional or flat out stupid. They're called conspiracy theories for a reason. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sarutama@rigorousintuition>Sarutama</A> at: 4/13/06 12:52 pm

by **pugzleyca3** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:04 pm

"I'm not interested in trading insults with you, Qutb. If you have anything beyond conclusory statements to offer, I'm happy to hear it. Otherwise, we're just wasting time." Yes, I have to tell you that I get damn sick of sifting through snipes and insults and attempts at one upmanship when trying to glean some info about what people think and what they know about 9/11. It is a waste of time for everyone concerned and there is just too much information to read here to be distracted by a bunch of garbage like that. I can get all of that and more on political sites. It gets old, it's old hat and people not involved in the fray think it looks silly, immature and ridiculous. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pugzleyca3>pugzleyca3</A> at: 4/13/06 1:11 pm

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I can get all of that and more on political sites. It gets old, it's old hat and people not involved in the fray think it looks silly, immature and ridiculous.<hr></blockquote> Some of us within the "fray" think the "fray" itself already seemed ridiculous a long time ago. But, since this wasn't directed at me, I suppose I'm not allowed to comment. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **robertdreed** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:27 pm

NewKid, the increasing desperation of your arguments is tiresome. Your "strictly legalese" assertion that every comment on an issue of contention amounts to "hearsay" unless it's sworn testimony is so far afield of the actual point of argument that it provides a telling indication of what you're after in the context of this debate- winning through obfuscation, rather than honestly illuminating dialogue. Any one seriously making the contention that observations offered about the 9-11 Pentagon attacks after the fact, and based on scrutiny of some snippets of visual media found on the Internet, are to be considered on an equal basis with the virtual consensus of eyewitness testimony from those on the scene is scarcely worth responding to. Dozens of people witnessed the scene of the impact from within a reasonably close-up distance. I haven't read of a single witness with firsthand knowledge who actually tracked the plane all the way to impact who contends that it was anything other than a large passnger jet. I realize that witness testimony can quite often be conflicting on small matters of detail. That said, 30 people witnessing something are more reliable than one or two. And even in cases where there's a small group of witnesses to something like a motor vehicle crash, they're able to agree on things such as whether the crash involved two sedans, or a bus and a bicycle. We aren't talking about the Miracle of Fatima here, The Pentagon impact was dramatic, but it was a naturalistic scenario obeying the laws of ordinary-reality physics. It's the "missile/commuter plane/military plane/doppleganger airliner/etc." hypothesis that requires a suspension of the laws of physical reality. That being the case, the obvious tactic left for such adherents to impeach the close-up eyewitness accounts that unanimously claim that a large jetliner hit the Pentagon would be to claim that every last witness that came forward with that view is "in on the plot." But typically, this isn't done. It's left as a tacit insinuation. Last but not least: NewKid, your assertion that use of the word "hearsay" by another poster must be considered by readers only in the strictest legal semantic sense also implicitly insists that there's no point at all in debating this subject- from any angle at all- unless it's sworn testimony under a legal proceeding. That's a frequently used dodge by people in the middle of getting pasted in a debate. So is another favored dodge- claiming that there isn't enough evidence extant to favor an uncomplcated hypothesis over a wildly extravagant one. This "argument" has often been offered in tandem with insinuations or accusations that anyone who doesn't agree with a given extraordinary hypothesis is a shill for the government. Readers will note that the "911 truth" adherents to such hypotheses are reticent about offering a logically coherent play-by-play narrative of their alternative version of how the attack happened, even when pressed. The preference seems to be to duck and counterattack. Convenient for them, since it's difficult to point out gaps or point up possible flaws in a narrative that isn't offered in the first place. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/13/06 2:42 pm

by **robertdreed** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:32 pm

Definitions of hearsay on the Web: * rumor: gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth * heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay information" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn * Hearsay in its most general and oldest meaning is a term used in the law of evidence to describe an out of court statement offered to establish the facts asserted in that statement. Hearsay is generally not admissible in common law courts because it is of suspect value, but there are many exceptions to this prohibition. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay * Second-hand evidence, generally consisting of a witness's testimony that he/she heard someone else say something. www.utcourts.gov/resources/glossary.htm * Evidence based on what the witness has heard someone else say, rather than what he/she has personally experienced. www.sedgwickcounty.org/da/legal_terms.html * Statements made out of court by someone other than the person testifying in court, which are offered to prove a matter in court. juryduty.nashville.gov/pls/portal/url/page/juryDuty/glossary/ * Evidence presented by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in question but heard about it from someone else. With some exceptions, hearsay generally is not admissible as evidence at trial. www.uscourts.gov/journalistguide/glossary.html * 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_ ... erms.shtml * Testimony of an individual that is not from his or her personal knowledge, but from what the witness has heard another person say. mova.missouri.org/cjterms.htm * An out of court statement made by the declarant offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. www.theoclawyer.com/criminal-terminalogy.html * Refers to statements made by persons other than the person testifying. The statement is a mere repetition of what the witness has heard others say out of court, and is offered as proof in the matter on which the witness is testifying. Generally, hearsay evidence is not admissible and is excluded from consideration by the trier of fact; however, there are numerous exceptions. ... www.adlergiersch.com/legal.cfm * Testimony by a witness who relates, not what he/she knows personally, but what others have told him/her or what he/she has heard said by others. Generally such testimony is not admissible in evidence although there are numerous exceptions to this general rule. dsf.chesco.org/courts/cwp/view.asp * Evidence which does not proceed from the personal knowledge of the witness, but is a repetition of an out-of-court statement and is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The general rule, subject to various exceptions, is that such statements are inadmissible because they rely on the truth and veracity of outside persons not present for cross-examination. www5.aaos.org/oko/vb/online_pubs/professional_liability/glossary.cfm

In my defense

Re: Desperately clinging to ?

Re: Desperately clinging to ?

Re: Desperately clinging to ?

Re: Desperately clinging to ?

Re: Desperately clinging to ?

Re: Desperately clinging to ?

Re: Desperately clinging to ?

Re: Desperately clinging to ?

Re: Desperately clinging to ?

Re: Desperately clinging to ?

Re: Desperately clinging to ?

Re: Heres some home grown far out speculation.

Re: Heres some home grown far out speculation.

"hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Who is online