Help Wanted

[Hess1865]

(09-21-2015 04:51 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  The Feds put all the witnesses in the Old Cap or Carroll Annex to be sure no one fled the proceedings. They did not have to turn state's evidence as none were charged. Imprisonment also helped remind them that they could be charged if they did not cooperate. I believe that habeas corpus was still suspended?

The suspension of hc was still in effect

[John Fazio]

(09-26-2015 04:35 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  THANK YOU, John. Please recall that I began my question with saying that I have trouble with understanding the concept of hearsay. I did not realize how complex the subject was. Your efforts in explaining are most appreciated.

Hopefully you won't mind - I have another question along these same lines. Would the words of a dead man also come under an exception? For example, how about the conversation Cobb said he had with Booth? Cobb said Booth gave his real name. These were the words of a dead man - unchallenged in court. We accept Cobb's word on this as true, but all we have is Cobb's recollection of what a man, then dead, said.

Are Booth's words admissible in court due to an exception in the hearsay rule?

In 1992 I was on a jury in Illinois. A widow was suing her dead husband's doctor for malpractice. The trial lasted two weeks, and the judge would never allow the deceased man's oral conversations to be admitted as evidence. His written words, such as letters he wrote, were admitted, but not his oral words as heard by others. The judge was consistent in his rulings....written words, yes; oral words, no. Obviously we have two totally different situations here, but if this Illinois judge's rules were applied to the conspiracy trial, Booth's diary would have been admissible but not his conversations as reported by others.

Roger:

The Federal rules of Evidence, followed almost to the letter by all the state rules, to my knowledge, provide that statements made by a deceased person are hearsay and thereofr inadmissibile, withthese exceptions:

1. A statement made under a belief of impending death (in a homicide or civil action), i.e. a statement made while the decedent believed his or her death was imminent if the statement concerns the cause or circumstance of his or her impending death.

2. A statement of any deceased person if ALL of the following apply:

a. The person's estate or a representative of his or her estate is a party to the action;
b. The statement was made before death (that's what it says!!!);
c. The statement is offered to rebut testimony by the adverse party on a matter within the knowledge of the decedent.

The Judge in the case to which you refer was therefore on sound legal footing.

Hope this helps. With respect to 2.b, above, statements made after death are clearly inadmissible irrespective of the availability of the corpse.

John

---

(09-26-2015 07:11 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  So hearsay is what the judge will let you get away with?

Wild Bill:

That's an oversimplification. There is a rule and there are 22 to 28 exceptions to it, and most Judges know it well because they have to in order to be Judges, but the lawyers who practice before them are woefully ignorant of the rule and its exceptions. Personally, I would favor joining those jurisdictions in which there is no such rule, where all hearsay evidence is admitted and the trier of fact (Judge or Jury, depending on the case and the jurisdiction) then determines how much weight to assign to it in making a judgment. It's an archaic rule, just like the rule against self incrimination ("the fifth"). Both of these rules took root in the common law at a time when trials by ordeal and "Star Chamber" proceedings were common, i.e. little or no due process. Google "Star Chamber" for an interesting slice of history.

John

[RJNorton]

John, once again thank you very much for your reply. Much appreciated!

P.S. No more questions for now - I won't ask why statements made after death are not admissible.

[Gene C]

You still can in Chicago, but only if you still vote.

[L Verge]

Gene - Your one-liners are absolutely great!

[Dennis Urban]

Unfortunately this thread wandered away from the original question, but no matter. I appreciate all the input and cogent thoughts. The question may never be convincingly answered since Aiken left no known account and Clampitt's account is not definitive. I tend to agree with John's interpretation of Clampitt's wording as well as accept the Constitutional Union's reference to their presence. As a researcher and historian, I will maintain an open mind as I must. As an individual at times obsessed with the intricacies of the assassination and it's aftermath, I choose to believe that Aiken and Clampitt must have been present.

[L Verge]

Dennis,

I am still hoping to find current contact information for Christine Christensen, THE authority on Aiken.

[Dennis Urban]

(10-07-2015 01:04 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Dennis,

I am still hoping to find current contact information for Christine Christensen, THE authority on Aiken.

Thanks, I'd love to have her contact information. Christine's article makes Aiken out to be a severely conflicted man, in terms of loyalty, which I believe he was.

[Gene C]

Here is an article by Thomas Turner, an inactive member here, about Aiken. Tom credits much of his info in the aritcle to Laurie and Herb as well as Christine Christensen.
http://www.theamericanfilmcompany.com/fi...nspirator/

The Wikipedia article leads me to believe they also may have had the assistance and contributions of certain members of the Surratt Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Aiken

[L Verge]

Christine did 99% of the research on Aiken with a few finds by Herb. I do not know of anyone else who has done real work on him. I am so frustrated that I cannot find Christine! Her snail address has also vanished because she did not rejoin the Surratt Society -- and then a "helpful" IT government tech wiped out our old membership files!

[Gene C]

Is that the same consultant that helped Hillary with her emails?