It's not hearsay if a person testifies from personal knowledge.
If you claim someone was not in the position to see
what he claims, the objection is lack of foundation.
The foundational facts must be shown to establish the
ability of the person to see what he says he saw.
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the
truth of what's asserted. This would refer to statements attributed to Kerry (or others).
There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Also, something might not be regarded
as hearsay if offered for a different purpose, eg., if the
fact that certain words were spoken was significant
for some purpose.
Now, if you want to talk about hearsay, foundation problems,
and authentication problems, you should be talking to Dan Rather, et. al.
Not only are the documents he offered hearsay
(out of court statements offered to prove the truth of their contents), but they have not been properly authenticated.
In this context, authentication would include the chain of custody.
The onus is on CBS to make its prima facie case and it's
failed miserably. Like MacBeth, as to Killian, they must say "He should have died hereafter."
But he died in 1984, making the burden considerably more difficult.
The Swiftvets, by contrast, to the extent personal knowledge
has been established, have profferred "admissible" evidence. |
