Sidebar, Your Honor

[Knights_Mom]

@Inigo-montoya

The child!

And as I clearly said…allowing her child to participate in a meeting about how to get rid of LK does not make her an unfit parent. Just not that bright.

To be clear, it was the minor child who said “I’ll bash their heads in.” Poor kid…since others at the meeting were making other specific plans about how to harm LK/RG he certainly cannot be blamed for chiming in.

And, again…we all make bad parenting decisions. This was obviously a very poor decision.

So your telling of this incident is hearsay then as it was told to you by another? Just so I understand.

[Inigo-montoya]

Is something hearsay because you say it is? I’ll give you one clue. I know what hearsay is and I don’t have this information via hearsay…now go guess again!

And btw, is COTH now enforcing the criminal rules of evidence or do you just not want your cronies getting truthful information. What if it were hearsay…but true? Are you trying to suppress information that doesn’t fit into your storyline? Almost everything on here is hearsay. But this, I assure you, is NOT!

[Knights_Mom]

@Inigo-montoya

Is something hearsay because you say it is? I’ll give you one clue. I know what hearsay is and I don’t have this information via hearsay…now go guess again!

And btw, is COTH now enforcing the criminal rules of evidence or do you just not want your cronies getting truthful information. What if it were hearsay…but true? Are you trying to suppress information that doesn’t fit into your storyline? Almost everything on here is hearsay. But this, I assure you, is NOT!

If it is not hearsay then I guess you were a party to the conversation. Ok.

[Mersidoats]

How do you know about this meeting? Were you there? Or were you eavesdropping? Is this one of those “tapes”?

[FitzE]

Two recording-related questions:

1. If posters are referencing and, in some instances, quoting defamatory information and criminal conduct based on evidence contained on recordings that were made illegally, is that not accusing someone of a crime which necessitates divulging one’s IRL identity under COTH rules?

2. If the recordings were made illegally (caveat: I understand this hasn’t been confirmed one way or the other), how could parties like 48 Hours, SS, Olympic Committee, etc. review those recordings or take any action based upon information contained therein without exposing themselves to liability? Truth is a defence to libel/slander. However, if your only proof is contained in illegal recordings made of the subject party, I’m assuming that would not be admissible as a defence in a defamation/libel/slander suit.

If folks with relevant legal experience could weigh in I’d be very appreciative to learn more about these elements of the situation.

• Please, no personal attacks, anecdotes, deflections, etc. from various partisans. Just interested in the legal aspects of the recordings IN THE EVENT THAT they are determined to be made in violation of applicable wiretapping regulations.

• Also, please, this is not an invitation to discuss whether or not they are admissible (though I would like to have a conversation with experienced posters about that point, as well).

I.e., assuming arguendo that the tapes are inadmissible, what are the circumstances surrounding any party using and/or referring to anything contained in those recordings?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@Inigo-montoya

Is something hearsay because you say it is? I’ll give you one clue. I know what hearsay is and I don’t have this information via hearsay…now go guess again!

And btw, is COTH now enforcing the criminal rules of evidence or do you just not want your cronies getting truthful information. What if it were hearsay…but true? Are you trying to suppress information that doesn’t fit into your storyline? Almost everything on here is hearsay. But this, I assure you, is NOT!

If it is not hearsay then I guess you were a party to the conversation. Ok.

Or maybe he has seen transcripts of the inadmissible audio recordings? That’s my guess.

[Angela_Freda]

And that makes it not hearsay? How?

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@Inigo-montoya

Is something hearsay because you say it is? I’ll give you one clue. I know what hearsay is and I don’t have this information via hearsay…now go guess again!

And btw, is COTH now enforcing the criminal rules of evidence or do you just not want your cronies getting truthful information. What if it were hearsay…but true? Are you trying to suppress information that doesn’t fit into your storyline? Almost everything on here is hearsay. But this, I assure you, is NOT!

If it is not hearsay then I guess you were a party to the conversation. Ok.

Or maybe he has seen transcripts of the inadmissible audio recordings? That’s my guess.

Transcribed by whom?

[trubandloki]

@Knights_Mom

Transcribed by whom?

I would have to go digging, but I thought LK (or was it IM) said all of the videos were transcribed. Maybe they said there who did it? I don’t remember.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Angela_Freda

And that makes it not hearsay? How?

He’d have heard it directly from the source, albeit a transcript of a digital recording of the source.
Just guessing, IANAL.

[Einhorn]

Maybe the tapes are inadmissable as to proving elements of a crime, but the information, if not used to prove elements of a crime, just that someone said something, to flesh out a journalistic story, doesn’t make them possible to refer to?

I mean, the standard for what a journalist uses is different that what can be used in a court of law. Journalists publish hearsay all the time.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@Inigo-montoya

Is something hearsay because you say it is? I’ll give you one clue. I know what hearsay is and I don’t have this information via hearsay…now go guess again!

And btw, is COTH now enforcing the criminal rules of evidence or do you just not want your cronies getting truthful information. What if it were hearsay…but true? Are you trying to suppress information that doesn’t fit into your storyline? Almost everything on here is hearsay. But this, I assure you, is NOT!

If it is not hearsay then I guess you were a party to the conversation. Ok.

Or maybe he has seen transcripts of the inadmissible audio recordings? That’s my guess.

Transcribed by whom?

The police/DA? Still guessing on my part.

[Scribbler]

A recording or indeed any kind of evidence can be inadmissible in criminal court which has very strict standards, which also vary between jurisdictions.

But there is no reason those standards apply to other venues. For instance, people get fired all the time based on videos that could be inadmissible in court or don’t even show them doing anything for which there’s a criminal charge. Clubs are free to make their own rules and hold members to them. SS does not require the standards of a court trial.

Also people have secretly filmed animal abuse inside dairy or chicken farms or slaughter houses and had animal cruelty charges laid. The ubiquity of cell phones has made videotaping of almost anything anywhere much more common.

The few cases I’ve heard about limiting video use by private citizens are a strata council fining residents for misdemeanors (minor stuff) based on videos in common areas where there was an expectation of privacy. They were forced to take them down. And creepy cafe owners putting voyeur videos in the stalls of women’s washrooms. They were charged, no idea how cases turned out.

There’s a huge leap between a piece of evidence being inadmissible in a given court context, and the creator of that video actually being charged with a crime.

When surveillance is done by LEO that’s a whole other thing because there is a lot of interest in making sure LEO does not abuse its powers. And LEO has more advanced technology than private citizens. Also most LEO surveillance is intended for eventual court use so needs to be squeaky clean not to get challenged in court. And there are repercussions for LEO that are caught breaking rules.

Most of the time “illegal surveillance” describes actions of LEO that violate the rules of that jurisdiction and LEO rules. Like not getting a warrant first. So something could be “illegal” for our city police but totally legal for say the CIA who are not bound by the same rules and don’t intend to take that evidence to a court trial
And yes, all the time journalists reporting on he said/she said kinds of stories will take whatever evidence one party provides to get commentary from the other party. Whether that’s videos or texts or photos or just an interview.

Journalists are allowed to create stories where everyone involved is a tragic mess. They are not required to act as a court trial. Indeed, the best crime journalism gets into the back story and shows how the situation developed. Generally there is already a known court verdict (which the journalist can also evaluate as fair or not).

Sometimes there’s material not admissible in court that changes how we see the events too. For instance, sometimes a defendant’s prior record is inadmissible in court so they get a lighter sentence, get released, and do the exact same thing agsin. Or their juvenile record is inadmissible. A good journalist will track all this down.

.

[Einhorn]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

Transcribed by whom?

The police/DA? Still guessing on my part.

I thought the victim said they had transcriptions done by forensic teams, and their own people. So maybe from the victim?

[Knights_Mom]

@Einhorn

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

Transcribed by whom?

The police/DA? Still guessing on my part.

I thought the victim said they had transcriptions done by forensic teams, and their own people. So maybe from the victim?

Those would be inadmissible. You can’t self transcribe.

[AnastasiaBeaverhousen]

@Inigo-montoya

The child!

And as I clearly said…allowing her child to participate in a meeting about how to get rid of LK does not make her an unfit parent. Just not that bright.

To be clear, it was the minor child who said “I’ll bash their heads in.” Poor kid…since others at the meeting were making other specific plans about how to harm LK/RG he certainly cannot be blamed for chiming in.

And, again…we all make bad parenting decisions. This was obviously a very poor decision.

“Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!”

[Einhorn]

Well sure, but we are discussing IM having read them, not whether they are admissable.

[Knights_Mom]

@Einhorn

Well sure, but we are discussing IM having read them, not whether they are admissable.

If they weren’t done by an official transcriber it doesn’t matter WHO read them. Without the certification from an official transcriber, there is no validation of the words written being a factual accounting and transcription of what was spoken.

That’s why it is relevant.

[Einhorn]

Um, I think we’re talking about two different things? I’m talking about the possibility of where another BB poster may have learned a thing. Or who may have given that to them.

Not at all discussing the veracity of that thing they read, the creation of it or their accuracy in reporting on it.

[BrendaJane]

because they contain the secret of the universe!!!