gitana1
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 29,385
- Reaction score
- 230,000
I'm perfectly capable of reading, thank you. I apologize that you don't like my choice of wording but that doesn't change the fact that everything we have to rely is what is being reported through the MSM. I have not personally sought out the indictment to read it for myself. Everything I am aware has been brought to my attention through either the news media or this site. Therefore, it is literally all considered to be heresay and until I can verify it for myself, will remain as such in my own eyes. This is all I have stated and all I will continue to state.
EVERYONE is entitled to a jury of their peers. No matter what we as individuals may believe. But there is no question that many have been vilified in the MSM just to be exonerated or at least "less vilified" when more facts are presented.
I don't know why I should have to blatantly state this but simply because my opinion opposes your own does not mean I personally oppose you. It appears you are passionate about this case but I always attempt to remove my emotions as they can lead to presumptions. Not saying you are doing this, just that I avoid it. You are obviously intelligent and aware of your facts. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with me and I hope to learn more from you.
As an attorney I am well able to remove passion from a case when analyzing it. Which I have done. I am passionate, however, about justice and logic.
It isn't that I don't like the wording in your posts. It's just that the wording is wrong. That's no based on mere lay opinion. It's based on my expertise. There is plenty of actual evidence. Shall we go through it?
The term hearsay applies to what is admissible in a court of law. It doesn't have one thing to do with whether evidence exists or not.
Further, there is plenty of non-hearsay evidence in this case. But even if it was all inadmissible in a court of law, doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
The direct statements of witnesses to reporters, on camera, about what they saw about what they heard CW say, that's not hearsay if repeated from the witness stand in court. Because "admissions" (statements) by a defendant out of court, are not hearsay. And what she herself testifies to as to what she observes, is not hearsay.
Any statements by the decedent fall under hearsay exception in CO.
What the defendant himself said to the media and what he did or did not do, none of that is hearsay.
You know healthy debate and analysis of cases with various viewpoints is valuable. It's why I like this forum. I've learned a lot here. But I do not respect baseless allegations against victims or witnesses as I gave seen on this thread nor do I like posters being accused of being motivated by nothing more than emotion and failing to use logic and reasoning to come to conclusions, when there is ample actual evidence for them to come to the conclusions they have.