[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: [email protected]
Date: 16 Sep 2005
Time: 09:51:21 PM
Please note the great dissembler who derides the notion that telephone bills are not telephone records,thereby at the least implying that they are. That's what saves him from being a liar because he did not expressly affirm that they are. This is how the prosecution witnesses repeatred lied on the styand. But let's look at the claim. First, all recoreds are hearsay and inadmissible as evidence unless they qualify under various records exception to the hearsay rule that identify requirements the edocument must satisfy to be deemed sufficinetly reliable to make it admissible. Let's see wht they are. Under Section 1271 of the California Evidence Code, a record is admissible if, and only if [text in brackets my comments]: "(a) the writing was made in the regular course of a business." [The record at issue was purportedly generated on July 4. Since administrative operations of all businesses like the phone company are closed for ordinary business on that day, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the record to have been generated in the normal course of business of the telephone company.] (b) the writing was made at or near the time of the act, codition or event; [Since the event occurred on June 12, a writing made July 4 is nowhere close to it.] (c) the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation; AND [No such witness ever appeared.] (d) the source of the information and the method and time of prepration were such as to indicate its trustworthiness. [These all indicate the exact opposite.] Yes, indeed, the telephone bill Clark waived around is bull and is not a telephone record. And the great dissembler is really a proven liar.