Video re photographs non-disclosure

[Caroline]

Will someone not rid us of this self-obsessed, truculent p(----)? Is there to be NO end to his puerile, interminable game of semantics?

Let him keep digging!

[ngb1066]

Julie Mugford reported on the words of Jeremy Bamber - hearsay is not that simple or any conversation wouldn't be allowed as evidence. Perhaps NGB can clarify whether the interview with David Bird (given that it can be verified by him) is indeed 'hearsay'. What do you think a statement is? Is it not the reporting of another persons words? If it can be verified, it can't be hearsay. The publishers won't be supplying the answer but of course if it comes from them, it will give you the excuse not to accept it. There is little more to say in this respect.

Unless I can't understand the meaning? 
hearsay
NOUN
mass noun
1 Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hearsay

I will ignore yet another personal attack - this is just more propergander from an obsessed Bamber supporter and dedicated conspiracy theorist.

You're clearly wanting to carry this on and one and I think this is now hounding!

In law Julie Mugford's evidence was not hearsay, as it was evidence of what she said that the accused, i.e. Jeremy, told her.  Evidence of what the accused said to a third party is an exception to the hearsay rule.  If that were not the case an admission by an accused person could never be admitted in evidence.
What David Bird said in court was not hearsay, it was his own direct evidence of what he did and what he saw.  Bird's statements to CAL however are hearsay. 

[ngb1066]

   I am certain that NGB and anyone else with a reasonable command of English can confirm that it is hearsay. You admit it yourself in your own wording by inference.
    "Given that it can be confirmed by Bird".
     So until it is confirmed by Bird it is hearsay.
     You're not asking Bird to confirm it are you? And until he does so it is hearsay. Somebody else is reporting his words. The words that CAL uses are obviously not Bird's direct quote and are paraphrased and reported by CAL.
   

I agree.

[Jane]

In law Julie Mugford's evidence was not hearsay, as it was evidence of what she said that the accused, i.e. Jeremy, told her.  Evidence of what the accused said to a third party is an exception to the hearsay rule.  If that were not the case an admission by an accused person could never be admitted in evidence.
What David Bird said in court was not hearsay, it was his own direct evidence of what he did and what he saw.  Bird's statements to CAL however are hearsay.

Can we be clear, please. If someone tells the story of what they'd done in a court of law it's evidence. If they tell the same story to another person who then repeats it, it becomes hearsay. Surely that makes the same story both evidence and hearsay?

[gringo]

In law Julie Mugford's evidence was not hearsay, as it was evidence of what she said that the accused, i.e. Jeremy, told her.  Evidence of what the accused said to a third party is an exception to the hearsay rule.  If that were not the case an admission by an accused person could never be admitted in evidence.
What David Bird said in court was not hearsay, it was his own direct evidence of what he did and what he saw. Bird's statements to CAL however are hearsay.

   Thanks NGB, presumably Dumb and Dumber will be satisfied with this.
    Alternatively they may now cover a couple of pages with denunciations of your comprehension skills, calling you a supercilious prick, conspiracy theorist and an idiot who resides in NGB world.

[gringo]

Can we be clear, please. If someone tells the story of what they'd done in a court of law it's evidence. If they tell the same story to another person who then repeats it, it becomes hearsay. Surely that makes the same story both evidence and hearsay?

   It is clear.

[Caroline]

In law Julie Mugford's evidence was not hearsay, as it was evidence of what she said that the accused, i.e. Jeremy, told her.  Evidence of what the accused said to a third party is an exception to the hearsay rule.  If that were not the case an admission by an accused person could never be admitted in evidence.
What David Bird said in court was not hearsay, it was his own direct evidence of what he did and what he saw.  Bird's statements to CAL however are hearsay.

That being the case (and I have no reason to doubt you), even if I did ask Bird and reported his comments here, they would still be hearsay! So, nothing would be good enough for the supercilious prick above?

[Jane]

That being the case (and I have no reason to doubt you), even if I did ask Bird and reported his comments here, they would still be hearsay! So, nothing would be good enough for the supercilious prick above?

It also appears that nothing can be reported as having been said because if its not in court it's always going to be hearsay and therefore cannot be relied upon. In fact,,, however much truth there maybe in what NGB says, it appears as its not in court, its hearsay..................even though we're not in court.

[gringo]

That being the case (and I have no reason to doubt you), even if I did ask Bird and reported his comments here, they would still be hearsay! So, nothing would be good enough for the supercilious prick above?

  Now Now.
    How pathetic? You have spent pages abusing me and when, even you have to admit that you were wrong, you demean yourself with such graceless nonsense. If you had understood in the first place we wouldn't have needed this extended debate. Then I wouldn't have had to explain to you part of Key Stage 2 English.
     

[Jane]

  Now Now.
    How pathetic? You have spent pages abusing me and when, even you have to admit that you were wrong, you demean yourself with such graceless nonsense. If you had understood in the first place we wouldn't have needed this extended debate. Then I wouldn't have had to explain to you part of Key Stage 2 English.
   

Need I remind you that "can" isn't a stand alone modal verb?

[Caroline]

  Now Now.
    How pathetic? You have spent pages abusing me and when, even you have to admit that you were wrong, you demean yourself with such graceless nonsense. If you had understood in the first place we wouldn't have needed this extended debate. Then I wouldn't have had to explain to you part of Key Stage 2 English.
   

You started with the insults but from what NGB posted, it would seem that 'hearsay' is a legal term which refers to court evidence. So what is the relevance of it here? We're not in court! It's simply a way for you to reject anything that comes back from CAL to support Bird having only acted as photographer twice!

Understood? If you have understood that COLP didn't actually call Bird himself a 'specialist; it would have ended a LOT sooner!

[ngb1066]

Can we be clear, please. If someone tells the story of what they'd done in a court of law it's evidence. If they tell the same story to another person who then repeats it, it becomes hearsay. Surely that makes the same story both evidence and hearsay?

Yes, in the sense that if the witness gives evidence in court it is admissible and not hearsay, but if that person tells a third party and that third party repeats it, the third party's statement is hearsay.

[ngb1066]

That being the case (and I have no reason to doubt you), even if I did ask Bird and reported his comments here, they would still be hearsay! So, nothing would be good enough for the supercilious prick above?

If you were to ask Bird and what he told you was then posted by you here that would be hearsay.  If you persuaded him to post here it would not be hearsay.  I do not want to complicate matters, but sometimes "hearsay upon hearsay" is referred to.   Referring to CAL's book is in that category.

[JackieD]

Please tell the forum why you have suddenly popped up? It clearly isn't to discuss the case. Then again, you know nothing at all about it!

Sad existence? I have great life! Of course if it makes you feel better to think it might be worse than the sad lot you're stuck with, who am I to spoil the one bright light you hold onto.

I don't live on forums but to be fair, neither do you, you've been banned from most of them! Ta ta!

Here you go again usual garbage from you
Where exactly have I been banned from?
How many forums do you frequent?
As I said a sad existance

[Caroline]

Yes, in the sense that if the witness gives evidence in court it is admissible and not hearsay, but if that person tells a third party and that third party repeats it, the third party's statement is hearsay.

If I persuaded him to post here, no one would believe it was him.

The book reference is good enough for me, I have no reason to believe that CAL would make up her sources and Bird is still alive to refute the claim. It would be a silly thing to do and it would ruin her reputation.

Thanks for clearing up the hearsay aspect, although I didn't introduce it and I don't believe it's even relevant to the original discussion but gringo seems to think we're in court.