Actor, Don Hawkins - Bambi rang me before massacre about hearing gods voice...

[Jane]

It is one of the reasons why Historians and legal investigators carefully scrutinize such claims.  Are there phone records to prove they talked at a time claimed, did they actually have a relationship that would warrant discussing things of such a nature and all the other things that go into evaluating claims. 

Since this claim never made it to court that alone means it is of little value and relevance even if truly alleged by Hawkins. 

The unreliability of claims of what people supposedly told them is also why hearsay is indamissible.  Admissibility of evidence hinges on reliability and relevance.  The former in a general principle of application.  The rules of evidence are formed with such in mind.  General rules regarding what could be deemed reliable.  The latter is actually specific to the case at hand and involves whether the exact issues of the case at hand are impacted by the evidence.

If evidence is of  anature generally reliable then it can be considered but tat that point the specifics are evaluated by the trier of fact to evaluate the veracity and what if any impact that has on the actual case.  Some things relevant still don't impact the overall decision. 

Courts just formally apply rules that are used by historians and others in everyday life.  The same exact issues a court looks at regarding reliability and accuracy are used in everyday life just less formalistic application of such.

So please tell me how information gets to court and who decides if it's "relevant" and to whom? Also, who decides what constitutes "hearsay".

[nugnug]

hearsay is when you say somebody told you something about someone else.

this wouldn't be hearsay in law because even though theirs no proof of its a derect conversion between 2 people which isnt hearsay.

[tyler]

Absolutely nugs. Otherwise JM's testimony would have then have to have been deemed as 'hearsay'.

[nugnug]

exactly alleged cell mate confessions allowed though for the life of me i cant see why they are how anyone on a jury can be stupid enough to believe them.

[scipio_usmc]

exactly alleged cell mate confessions allowed though for the life of me i cant see why they are how anyone on a jury can be stupid enough to believe them.

A confession is a statement against interest.  Statements against interest are excluded from the hearsay rule.  All confessions are admissible not just jailhouse confessions.  How credible the claim is depends on how detailed the claim is and what the person has to gain from lying.  Most of the time they say they confessed because they wanted to appear tough so the prisoners would leave them alone.  It is up to the trier of fact to decide whether the person did in fact confess and the significance to attribute to such a confession. 

Most of the time the details matter the most.  if the detials match the evidence in the case that is very bad.  If the details don't match that can be indicative of the person having falsely confessed for some reason and in some instances the confession being made up.


   

[JackiePreece]

I think that it's become creepy that people are now being traced to be questioned by Jackie Preece!!! This forum is becoming worrying the way that people off the forum are spoken about as is they have to answer questions or that an intrusion on their person life in 2014 is justified  because of something they (apparently) said to a newspaper years ago.

I think it's creepy when people make out they have inside knowledge of submissions to the ccrc

Mat if you were ever interested in our justice system you would be interested if this guy spoke to Sheila just before the murders

But you're not are you

[scipio_usmc]

hearsay is when you say somebody told you something about someone else.

this wouldn't be hearsay in law because even though theirs no proof of its a derect conversion between 2 people which isnt hearsay.

Mike is alleging that Don Hawkins told a reporter that he spoke to Sheila.  Unless we hear directly from Hawkins it is hearsay/double hearsay.  Hawkins talking directly on the record and subject to cross examination would not be hearsay.

But he was not used in court so whether she actually said such to him is in doubt or it was long before the murders so deemed useless by the defense.

[guest154]

Mat if you were ever interested in our justice system you would be interested if this guy spoke to Sheila just before the murders

I am interested actually but nothing has ever been made of this, so there can't be much there.

[nugnug]

I think it's creepy when people make out they have inside knowledge of submissions to the ccrc

Mat if you were ever interested in our justice system you would be interested if this guy spoke to Sheila just before the murders

But you're not are you

i belive some people may be telling the truth aout the inside knowledge butif then thats illegal.

[JackiePreece]

If you were really interested you would want to talk to him yourself

[guest154]

If you were really interested you would want to talk to him yourself

No I wouldn't! Why would I contact someone I've never met in order to question them about the Bamber case. I have no right to invade someones privacy or the interest in tracking anyone down.

[scipio_usmc]

I think it's creepy when people make out they have inside knowledge of submissions to the ccrc

Mat if you were ever interested in our justice system you would be interested if this guy spoke to Sheila just before the murders

But you're not are you

Since the evidence proves she didn't kill anyone else and can't have killed herself either, what she supposedly told someone doesn't amount to squat.  It certainly could not help get Jeremy off.  I could be in a crowd that witnesses someone threaten to kill another person.  I could hold a gun near the head of the person who was threatened and shoot then knock out the guy who make the threat and dump him at the scene, leave the gun near him and call police.  If the police show up and test his body and know he didn't fire a gun and had no blood from the victim then the police will know it was a frameup like he claimed.  No matter how many witnesses come forward saying he threatened to kill the victim that will not change the evidence that he didn't.

[guest154]

Since the evidence proves she didn't kill anyone else and can't have killed herself either, what she supposedly told someone doesn't amount to squat.  It certainly could not help get Jeremy off.  I could be in a crowd that witnesses someone threaten to kill another person.  I could hold a gun near the head of the person who was threatened and shoot then knock out the guy who make the threat and dump him at the scene, leave the gun near him and call police.  If the police show up and test his body and know he didn't fire a gun and had no blood from the victim then the police will know it was a frameup like he claimed.  No matter how many witnesses come forward saying he threatened to kill the victim that will not change the evidence that he didn't.

Exactly. But because it fits with what Jackie believes, she chooses to ACCEPT it... everything else that doesn't fit with what she believes is rejected. That's not how you decide innocence or guilt.

[nugnug]

Mike is alleging that Don Hawkins told a reporter that he spoke to Sheila.  Unless we hear directly from Hawkins it is hearsay/double hearsay.  Hawkins talking directly on the record and subject to cross examination would not be hearsay.

But he was not used in court so whether she actually said such to him is in doubt or it was long before the murders so deemed useless by the defense.

if he told this to a national newspaper he can hardly deny saying it.

quated out of context not his exact words maybe but he cant deny he said it.

[lookout]

Oh dear,it doesn't go down well when,or if something comparatively new crops up.