To: Canadian Outrage; Devil_Anse; Nettie; All
I am surprised at Fox News for this!! It could eliminate the use of that particular taped conversation.
And WHAT IF our girl Amber was taping conversations, or, at least, one particular conversation, with Scott BEFORE she went to MPD? Wouldn't prosecution want that "particular" conversation to be leaked, knowing that it was inadmissable? I don't want to be a spoiler here in regard to Scott's guilt because I think he's guilty as sin, but I can see how this latest breathless reporting can hurt the prosecution's case. Heck, it could even lead to a change of venue; e.g., these selective leaks aren't coming from another county, are they? Exactly who was talking in direct quotes about what was said on any of those tapes?
sANDY: I wouldn't put it pass some of Amber's so called friends. This could have been said right at the very beginning "before" there ever was a gag order. Amber's "friends" have stabbed her in the back before.
posted on 08/25/2003 5:17:51 PM PDT
by Canadian Outrage
(All us Western Canuks belong South)
You've got a good point there, Sandy! I do wonder when Amber starting taping for the police?
posted on 08/25/2003 6:35:25 PM PDT
You know what, Sandy? If Amber taped Scott on her own, without having first gone to the police, I think THAT tape would be MORE likely to be admissible even than the police-made tapes.
I mean, the main objection to something like that is that the STATE/GOVERNMENT was "violating his rights" under the Constitution. The State/government is allowed to be only so intrusive. But there is NO constraint on how intrusive an individual can be.
So if someone did that to him, some individual, then yes, he could take her to CIVIL court over it, perhaps. And if they have a wiretap law in CA, if she violated it, there might be trouble with that. BUT just b/c she might have violated some wiretap law doesn't automatically mean that her privately made tape would be inadmissible. I haven't read the CA law that says individuals can't tape THEIR OWN conversations with another person--I don't even know whether such a law exists. And Amber is not the State/government, so he can't complain that she violated his Constitutional rights--at least, not with the same punch that he could if the Big Bad State had "violated his Constitutional rights".
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson