Skip to comments.EXCLUSIVE: JOHN EDWARDS NAILED BY DEAD WIFE’s VIDEO TESTIMONY!
Posted on 06/11/2011 5:20:29 AM PDT by NCjim
In a devastating act of ultimate revenge, a dying Elizabeth Edwards recorded a bombshell secret videotape for prosecutors nailing her cheating husband John as he will stand trial on charges that could land him behind bars for 30 years.
Thats the stunning secret behind the federal indictment brought against the disgraced former presidential candidate on June 3 following a two-year grand jury investigation into whether he illegally used campaign funds to cover up his affair with his then-pregnant mistress Rielle Hunter.
Elizabeth wanted to exact revenge against John for destroying their 33-year marriage and family by cheating with Rielle, source close to the scandal told ENQUIRER.
It was Elizabeths idea to secretly record a video and tell what she knew of the affair and Johns horrific betrayal.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalenquirer.com ...
Well, I was told once on a FR religious thread that I was evil for thinking EE was one mean lady. Nice to be vindicated from beyond the grave...
Sour grapes from the grave are not admissible testimony
Revenge from the grave. I bet God is smiling, too.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
And here I thought Reille was the one who got nailed.
If the feds a using this for evidence, it has to go beyond sour grapes over his infidelity. Infidelity isn’t a crime. She must also have had the scoop on his money issues.
Or maybe it's...
"Revenge is a dish best served when you are cold."
Not if they are from 'beyond the grave'.
If she was properly deposed, this is evidence, and much like a dying declaration.
She knew where the skeletons were, and if nothing else has given probable cause to dig deeper and marked the spots.
She was an angry, bitter woman and it showed in her appearance. Still, she looked better than Reille. Cheating on your wife is bad enough. Cheating with a woman who looks like Rod Stewart is pathetic!
Or....Nail the coffin first, then the tramp.
Hard to believe she would do that to her children.
Elizabeth Edwards was imperfect, as you and I. She didn’t deserve a dead son, cancer, an early grave, or the infidelity of her wretched husband.
God disposes. Her accounts are settled. Speak no ill of the dead. If you still have issues over her earthly sins, pray for her soul, or work on your own.
The defense cannot cross examine, makes for great tabloid news but its not admissible.
Mat 6:14-15 (NIV) “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But, if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”
But dying declarations are.
The rules regarding testimony are more complex than you seem to realize.
Don’t count on it, this slim ball will talk his way out of it. He didn’t get to where he is financially by following the rules.
Sure I’m not a lawyer. I also know that any decent defense lawyer could tie this stuff up for a LONG time.
Its a stupid stunt
How long after the video did she actually take before she died. There may be too long of a period of time to even classify this as a dying declaration. We all know we are going to die, so that alone is not enough to make it a dying declaration. It is the imminence of death that supposedly makes your statements more likely to be truthful.
Some of us are forgiven. Some share their wretchedness even after death. The forgiven forgive. Matthew 18: 21-35
She didnt deserve a dead son, cancer, an early grave, or the infidelity of her wretched husband.
We are condemned by sin. We deserve much worse and would reap it if it wasn't for grace.
You said “SPeak no ill of the dead”......REALLY??? You have nice things to say about Hitler, Pol Pot, etc?? Good grief, you can’t be serious.
We're all sinners. She deserved exactly what she got. She enjoyed the fruits of her wretched husbands law practice and the public limelight he brought to her. Her accounts with God will be settled on Judgement Day. Her accounts with the people they mutually hurt are still wide open.
Daughter Kate, on the picture, looks to be pregnant. Maybe she got married after her mother died. Or maybe not - but the article says she was newly engaged at the time that Elizabeth was dying and had agreed to assume responsibility for the two younger siblings in the event John was sent to jail.
I noticed that Kate looks remarkedly like her mother on the news clips of John when he was before the cameras this week.
Just my observations.
John Edwards is narcissistic scum, but this deathbed video is troubling, less for what it says about John than about the nature of Elizabeth’s heart. It’s a bad and sad thing to go to one’s death filled with such rage and bitterness: we are told to forgive others if we expect to be forgiven, and making a revenge vid does not suggest Elizabeth had forgiven anybody anything.
People like John Edwards make their own hell. They don’t need help from our earthly vengeance.
One exception to the hearsay rule is for statements made when someone knows they are dying. This isn't a silver bullet, but it may be a gun belt carrying a whole row of silver bullets for the prosecutor to use.
Forgive me ladies but, men, if you are going to do anything wrong, NEVER tell your lady, and if she knows you better keep momma happy.
She too was a pretty sharp lawyer and knew the rules.
Did the late Mrs. Edwards know of the affair while her husband was running for prez? Did she help him keep that information from going public while he was running? If the answers to those two questions are yes, then I think that the late Mrs. Edwards was capable of anything.
She was an attractive lady. Pretty unusual for a liberal.
I’m wondering... If it isn’t admissible in an actual court case (because she can’t be cross-examined), would it have been a tool during Grand Jury hearing?
Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin will have a video of her own. Is weiner really that much different than Edwards?
Could have been. The guy is a slime ball but she stayed married and supported him while knowing that. Its taking the testimony of one scumbag against another, who do you believe?
Good grief! The Hitler argument!
She certainly knew of his actions in the courtroom.
But it is still great to see Silky Pony transformed into Rayon gelding...
How about the evidence her testimony would have led to? She was a lawyer and the prosecutors are obviously lawyers, I have a sense they knew what they were doing.
Isn’t that like a de bene esse that might be admissible under certain circumstances? Like her death? Without the opportunity to cross examine, the testimony itself might not hold up but I’d bet the evidence revealed in it would be quite viable.
I have never been cheated on, so have no way to be sure how I would react, but this woman seems to have used her last energies to be sure her cheating husband really paid the price. How that helps their children is hard to reckon, and one would have hoped that she’d have considered the ramifications on their lives. But it doesn’t seem she did. Both of them thought only of themselves. Poor kids.
And? Forgiving does not mean forgetting. God does not forget our sins, we will still have to answer for those.
Dying doesn’t make her a saint. The two of them hurt many many people and made significant contributions to the mess of medical malpractice. How much has the resulting practice of defensive medicine cost each of us? How many lives have been lost because doctors are afraid of losing their livelihood?
“The guy is a slime ball but she stayed married and supported him while knowing that.”
I totally agree. I was just asking a technical question about testimony.
EE knew everything about the pig, and she benefitted from the income he brought in; she’s no better than he is. Again... I was just asking a technical question.
You wrote: “Mat 6:14-15 (NIV) For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But, if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”
WHEN FORGIVENESS IS A SIN
By Dennis Prager
(Reprinted in Reader’s Digest, March 1998, from The Wall Street Journal)
The bodies of the three teen-age girls shot dead last December by a fellow student at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., were not yet cold before some of their schoolmates hung a sign announcing, “We forgive you, Mike!” They were referring to Michael Carneal, 14, the killer.
This immediate and automatic forgiveness is not surprising. Over the past generation, many Christians have adopted the idea that they should forgive everyone who commits evil against anyone, no matter how great and cruel and whether or not the evildoer repents.
The number of examples is almost as large as the number of heinous crimes. Last August, for instance, the preacher at a Martha’s Vineyard church service attended by the vacationing President Clinton announced that the duty of all Christians was to forgive Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber who murdered 168 Americans. “Can each of you look at a picture of Timothy McVeigh and forgive him?” the Rev. John Miller asked. “I have, and I invite you to do the same.”
Though I am a Jew, I believe that a vibrant Christianity is essential if America’s moral decline is to be reversed. And despite theological differences, Christianity and Judaism have served as the bedrock of American civilization. And I am appalled and frightened by this feel-good doctrine of automatic forgiveness.
This doctrine advances the amoral notion that no matter how much you hurt others, millions of your fellow citizens will forgive you. It destroys Christianity’s central moral tenets about forgiveness. Even by God, forgiveness is contingent on the sinner repenting, and it can be given only by the one sinned against.
” And if your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him,” reads Luke 17:3-4. “And if seven times of the day he sins against you, and seven times of the day turns to you saying, I repent, you shall forgive him.”
These days one often hears that “It is the Christian’s duty to forgive, just as Jesus forgave those who crucified him.” Of course, Jesus asked God to forgive those who crucified him. But Jesus never asked God to forgive those who had crucified thousands of other innocent people. Presumably he recognized that no one has the moral right to forgive evil done to others.
You and I have no right, religiously or morally, to forgive Timothy McVeigh or Michael Carneal; only those they sinned against have that right, If we are automatically forgiven no matter what we do, why repent? In fact, if we forgive everybody for all the evil they do, God and his forgiveness are unnecessary. We have substituted ourselves for God.
I host a talk-radio show, and when confronted with such arguments, some callers offered another defense: “The students were not forgiving Carneal for murdering the three students. They were forgiving him for the pain he caused them.” Such self centered thinking masquerading as a religious ideal is a good example of the moral disarray in much of religious life.
Some people have a more sophisticated defense of the forgive-every-one-everything doctrine: doing so is psychologically healthy. It brings “closure.” This is therapy masquerading as idealism: “I forgive you because I want to feel better.”
Until West Paducah, I believed that Christians will lead America’s moral renaissance. Though I still believe that, the day those students, with the support of their school administration, hung out that sign I became less sanguine. If young Christians have inherited more values from the ‘60s culture than from their religion, where can we look for help?
No one in the Edwardses political circle felt anything less than complete sympathy for Elizabeths plight. And yet the romance between her and the electorate struck them as ironic nonethelessbecause their own relationships with her were so unpleasant that they felt like battered spouses. The nearly universal assessment among them was that there was no one on the national stage for whom the disparity between public image and private reality was vaster or more disturbing.
If he takes the stand, it can be used to impeach his testimony. Maybe he can do one of his ambulence chaser summations, like the one that got him rich, to win this case but I doubt it.
If she tells the truth on the video, how is that evil? He is the evil one, lying from the beginning.