If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Don't know if weird or stupid- That Michael Jackson's ghost makes a statement while being channelled through Lionel Ritchies ex-wife, or that a judge in California has accepted this as legal evidence. Why yes, money IS involved   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 65
    More: Stupid, Michael Jackson, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, lawsuits, Dr. Conrad Murray, Randy Phillips, wrongful deaths, superior courts, anesthetics  
•       •       •

6946 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2013 at 6:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-15 09:37:08 PM  
We need more of this sort of thing.  Seriously.

What a better way of having to deal with identifying incompetent judges who cannot discern between reality and fantasy then letting them identify themselves in the most public way possible?  Keep it up, nuts!  This makes it easier for the saner of us to keep track of you and put you in places where you can't hurt other people or yourselves.
 
2013-06-15 10:20:53 PM  
It's true, this man has no dick
 
2013-06-15 10:32:14 PM  

SkinnyHead: TonyDanza: SkinnyHead: Affirm because the judge was correct in overruling the hearsay objection.

I'm no lawyer, and I don't even pretend to play one on tv, but how is this not hearsay?

It's not hearsay unless it's offered for the truth of the matter.  The article says the judge "'let the testimony stand', as Mr Phillips responded to questioning about an email he sent back in August 2009."  If Mr. Phillips was being asked why he sent an e-mail to someone, and the reason for him sending the e-mail was that he heard a statement attributed to Michael Jackson's ghost, his answer would not be hearsay, because obviously it's not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted by the ghost.  It is only being offered to explain why Phillips sent that e-mail.  That's the way I see it, anyways.


I see you're getting good mileage from your GED in law again.
 
2013-06-15 10:49:25 PM  

Bucky Katt: SkinnyHead: TonyDanza: SkinnyHead: Affirm because the judge was correct in overruling the hearsay objection.

I'm no lawyer, and I don't even pretend to play one on tv, but how is this not hearsay?

It's not hearsay unless it's offered for the truth of the matter.  The article says the judge "'let the testimony stand', as Mr Phillips responded to questioning about an email he sent back in August 2009."  If Mr. Phillips was being asked why he sent an e-mail to someone, and the reason for him sending the e-mail was that he heard a statement attributed to Michael Jackson's ghost, his answer would not be hearsay, because obviously it's not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted by the ghost.  It is only being offered to explain why Phillips sent that e-mail.  That's the way I see it, anyways.

I see you're getting good mileage from your GED in law again.


Sadly, I would have to agree with SkinnyHead in the result, but not for the reasons with which he relies.  If the testimony goes to the narrative, or in other words, for a reason other than the truth of its contents, it still IS hearsay.  However, the admission of the evidence falls upon the principled exceptions to the hearsay rule, which are necessity and reliability, usually factors left to judicial discretion "i.e. factual basis," rather than a general exclusionary principle.  Typically, if the justice allows this testimony to go to the jury for whatever reason, said justice will include strong limitations in his/her charge to the jury regarding how they may use the evidence.  This process tends to work...

However, after saying that, if I was a juror, I'd call BS on the testimony...

/thanks for letting me respond to SkinnyHead's GED in LULZ, or Law I mean
 
2013-06-15 11:02:44 PM  
Brick-House

I think all these tards need to cut back on the Jesus Juice

Wow, that's some amazing level of r-tard. I can't tell which part is more idiotic, the assertion that Calif. is known for being a strict Bible-Belt state, or the idea that the Bible supports Mediums.
 
2013-06-16 12:18:18 AM  

OnlyM3: Brick-House

I think all these tards need to cut back on the Jesus Juice
Wow, that's some amazing level of r-tard. I can't tell which part is more idiotic, the assertion that Calif. is known for being a strict Bible-Belt state, or the idea that the Bible supports Mediums.


Allegedly Michael Jackson used to refer to wine as Jesus Juice.. He's making the joke that they should cut down on drinking. Sorta like the tramp gag in movies.
I believe you owe him an apology.
 
2013-06-16 12:20:35 AM  

jebusfreak: Bucky Katt: SkinnyHead: TonyDanza: SkinnyHead: Affirm because the judge was correct in overruling the hearsay objection.

I'm no lawyer, and I don't even pretend to play one on tv, but how is this not hearsay?

It's not hearsay unless it's offered for the truth of the matter.  The article says the judge "'let the testimony stand', as Mr Phillips responded to questioning about an email he sent back in August 2009."  If Mr. Phillips was being asked why he sent an e-mail to someone, and the reason for him sending the e-mail was that he heard a statement attributed to Michael Jackson's ghost, his answer would not be hearsay, because obviously it's not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted by the ghost.  It is only being offered to explain why Phillips sent that e-mail.  That's the way I see it, anyways.

I see you're getting good mileage from your GED in law again.

Sadly, I would have to agree with SkinnyHead in the result, but not for the reasons with which he relies.  If the testimony goes to the narrative, or in other words, for a reason other than the truth of its contents, it still IS hearsay.  However, the admission of the evidence falls upon the principled exceptions to the hearsay rule, which are necessity and reliability, usually factors left to judicial discretion "i.e. factual basis," rather than a general exclusionary principle.  Typically, if the justice allows this testimony to go to the jury for whatever reason, said justice will include strong limitations in his/her charge to the jury regarding how they may use the evidence.  This process tends to work...

However, after saying that, if I was a juror, I'd call BS on the testimony...

/thanks for letting me respond to SkinnyHead's GED in LULZ, or Law I mean


I agree with SkinnyHead.  As he stated, hearsay is a statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.  Example:  A witness is asked why she called 911.  If she says "Because Mark told me 'I just saw John shoot Sarah,'" the statement is admissible because it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.  The statement was in response to why the witness called 911, not to prove the truth of the fact that mark saw John shoot Sarah.

My guess is the testimony was in response to why he sent the e-mail or something.  So if it wasn't to assert that MJ killed himself by accident, it's not hearsay.

That being said, most jurisdictions have a "catch-all" exception to hearsay that, generally provides, if it is the only source for the evidence, and is sufficiently reliable, it will be admitted.  The judge may have ruled it admissible under this exception.  Just because the statement is outlandish does not determine its admissibility, it is the job of the jury to measure credibility and whether they believe the evidence.

/lawyer
 
2013-06-16 12:30:27 AM  

ZAZ: A lawyer representing the Jackson family reportedly objected to the evidence, claiming it was 'triple hearsay', as the conversation was relayed to Branda Richie through the assistance of a medium. But the judge let the evidence stand nonetheless.

Pop quiz time, law school students. You are on the panel reviewing the jury verdict on appeal. You have a preserved objection to the medium-relayed spiritual hearsay. Do you

a. Reverse for legal error

b. Affirm because the jury would have had to be nuts to take the statement seriously

or

c. Take another puff of state-legal medical marijuana and hope your headache goes away


To answer this question, even if admission of the statement was an abuse of discretion, I doubt that the admission prejudiced plaintiff such that it was outcome determinative, thus, it is not reversible error.
 
2013-06-16 12:49:40 AM  

nikknaack1: My guess is the testimony was in response to why he sent the e-mail or something. So if it wasn't to assert that MJ killed himself by accident, it's not hearsay.


I guess that's my issue.  From the article I can't tell why the question was asked, or what the answer was specifically in regards to.

I get that it could be admissible if the question was something like "why did you call Mrs. Richie crazy batshiat insane", and he responded with "cause she told me she spoke to Michael's ghost and that he said it was an accident".
 
2013-06-16 02:05:02 AM  

Mugato: The ghost stuff, how does it work?


He would appear as he visualizes himself in his heart and soul. So I would expect Michael to manifest as Kate Smith.
 
2013-06-16 02:13:53 AM  
A sue-ance, I havent seen one of those since the one against Lord Harrington.
 
2013-06-16 09:06:09 AM  

TorqueToad: bim1154: I would like to see California slide into the sea with no survivors.

But who would make all your movies?


Hollywood stopped making good movies years ago, so no loss there.
 
2013-06-16 09:47:52 AM  

letrole: Ghosts do exist, but they are not the dead. Rather, they are evil spirits who exploit people's superstition. The same is true for dreams and so forth about loved ones who've died recently.

There is nothing in Scripture that even remotely supports the idea of the soul remaining on Earth after the death of the body. While the eventual destination of the soul is up for debate, it is safe to say that ghosts are not the soul/spirit/mind of the departed.


I could almost see this one getting bites, at least of the derisive anti-superstitious kind, but the name up your difficulty level considerably.
 
2013-06-16 11:52:46 AM  

TonyDanza: SkinnyHead: Affirm because the judge was correct in overruling the hearsay objection.

I'm no lawyer, and I don't even pretend to play one on tv, but how is this not hearsay?


I'd go with it not being hearsay because ghosts aren't real, and therefore claiming "a ghost told me" in court is clearly a false statement, and therefore perjury.  An objection based on the hearsay rule would not be the appropriate objection.
 
2013-06-16 12:49:32 PM  

DarkVader: I'd go with it not being hearsay because ghosts aren't real, and therefore claiming "a ghost told me" in court is clearly a false statement, and therefore perjury.


Would possibly agree but the guy didn't say a ghost told him.  He said that someone else told him that a ghost told that someone else.

Maybe the judge did just let it stand because it simply is just so ridiculous, but unless I see the context of the question still seems to be hearsay.
 
Displayed 15 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report