Posted on 05/29/2002 5:03:41 AM PDT by kattracks
The risks of not cleaning up that scene --- of having hard evidence found that can be used in court --- far outweigh the risks of being spotted in the area in the middle of night while cleaning it.
Condit would not have left that evidence lying out there --- it doesn't make sense. It's the kind of mistake a typical, lowlife, which-way-did-he-go-George criminal with a history of violent crimes against women might make. But Condit?
I don't buy it.
Buy it. As member of the Intelligence Committee, COndit would be familiar with portable GPS surveillance equipment as you are apparently not. For the naive, it means that once you are suspected, the police know your every move within 20 feet and how long you are at that spot. There was a recent forensic show on a murder suspect caught in just this way--he returned to the crime scene to clean up.
The police had a GPS on him and knew exactly where he had gone. (BTW, GPS watches are available so that you can know where your child/friend/mate is at all times).
The fact that Condit accusers tend to fall into the category of people who believe this kind of stuff is another reason to strongly doubt his guilt.
at bay, if you really believe that a satellite follows Condit's every move, I strongly suggest that you get back on your medication as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
A "Naive" Freeper
The xmitrs can be hidden in vehicles, briefcases etc. per a valid search warrant or clandestinely. I would hope a competent p.d. would have tailed Gar, or p.i.'s at the least.
But you still haven't explained why he has only put out a very sketchy timeline, that has been proven blatantly untrue, but not because the Police even checked with the ABC Producer.
(Making an alibi sketchy is a tactic to limit the ability to check it for reliability, and it is clear that Condit and his sycophantic staff worked at that.)
What does that have to do with the content of a telephone conversation?
Only one big problem here, the same problem that cropped up with O.J. Simpson, Bill Clinton, etc. The police and others in authority are very reluctant to take on famous people/people with money/elected officials.
I don't believe for a minute anybody ever did or ever will put tracking equipment on Condit's cars, or do anything to Condit other than possibly inconvenience him in another interview (probably to avoid being criticized by the press).
General Rule of Hearsay
First, then, the standard definition of hearsay as found in the widely used Black's Law Dictionary (5th edition): "A statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay evidence is testimony in court of a statement made out of the court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out of court asserter. Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he has heard others say." As the definition also notes, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule (for example when the original declarant is not available and the statement contains indicia of reliability). While some of the exceptions may apply to the work of the TRC, I will, like Ms. Jeffery, focus on the basic rule and not the exceptions.
What is important here is the use of an out of court statement as an assertion of the truth of the content of that out of court statement - as the definition reads, "to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out of court asserter." The concern of the hearsay rule is that matters of fact asserted by an individual rely for their truth in part upon the credibility of the individual asserting them. The hearsay rule generally disallows the use of out of court statements as evidence of the truth of the matters asserted in that statement.
Let's start with a simple example. A friend was late keeping an appointment with me yesterday afternoon; he said he was late because he got caught in the rain; in order to lessen the possibility that he would be late for subsequent meetings, I bought him an umbrella.
Now let's assume that you want to know whether it was raining yesterday. My recounting of the statement of my friend to prove that it was in fact raining would be hearsay. It is my friend, and not I, who claims to have personal knowledge of the rain, and it is thus his credibility that is important in evaluating the truth of his own assertion. I have no personal knowledge of the rain yesterday; my only evidence is a statement made to me by someone else who claimed to have seen the rain. My friend could testify concerning the existence of rain, because he claims to have seen and experienced it.
The fact that my friend may testify that it was raining, of course, does not mean that in fact it was raining. Why then do we allow his testimony and not mine? Whether we accept that it was raining or not turns on the credibility of his testimony. We want his direct testimony so we can ascertain his demeanor and truthfulness by, among other things, cross-examination. At the end of the day, all that I can provide you with is testimony that my friend said that it is raining - but that does not help us very much in determining whether it was raining or not. My friend knows (or at least claims to know), and a determination of whether he is lying or not will affect our conclusion about whether we accept that it was raining or not.
And, of course, there is the clear understanding by condit or anyone else in his position of both power and risk that anything you say will be held against you in the media long before it comes up again in court.
He's a creep, I will only buy that he is a murderer when there is evidence amounting to proof, not just because I'd like him to go down & take the rest of his creepy party with him.
And, I reiterate that the Levy's themselves are not and have not put up a real great performance.
A court, whether it be of law or public opinion, is, by your own admission, still a court. The same rules may not necessarily apply, but you still have to deal with facts. And while you can refer to the phone conversation, it is still devoid of fact, up to and including the question of its existence.
To put it in plain English, as far as the conversation goes, the only fact here is Anne-Marie Smith said it happened. That's it. There is simply no way to prove it ever occurred.
And even if it did, we know for a fact that Condit did anything but disappear. So, again, assuming he actually said that, we do not know why he did, which opens the door to speculation.
Bottom line: The words of Anne-Marie Smith, in regard to the telephone conversation she says she had with Gary Condit, are irrelevant. They do not hold up under scrutiny in the court of public opinion, and they certainly would never hold up in a court of law.
\table{X,O,X O,X ,,,X}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.