Old Wounds

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

LOL, rt. I've been a trial lawyer for 22 years. Rated AV by Martindale-Hubbel (that really doesn't mean all that much, but it's the only nation-wide rating of lawyers). If that woman came into court and offered testimony that she heard two people talking about such and such, her testimony would be hearsay and would not be allowed (unless one of the hearsay exceptions applied).

Really? Because i HAVE asked lawyers about this, and the article gave legal opinions on this as well.

[rtrapasso]

i don't have my Black's in front of me, but Webster's says:

"Hearsay evidence: in law, any evidence not based upon the personal knowledge of the witness but known to him only through other persons. Such evidence is usually inadmissable as testimony"

So, if a person hears someone say something while they are present at the conversation, how is that known only through other persons?

[Canoerebel]

Yes, really.
 
If a guard hears a prisoner say something, that guard's testimony about what he heard the prisoner say is hearsay.  However it is admissible hearsay because it falls under the "admission against interest" exception to the hearsay rule.
 
So, if the lady heard Roosevelt and her dad talking about something, and that lady then wishes to testify about what she heard, her testimony is hearsay.  It might be admissibile under certain exceptions, but obviously hearsay evidence has potential weaknesses.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Yes, really.

If a guard hears a prisoner say something, that guard's testimony about what he heard the prisoner say is hearsay. However it is admissible hearsay because it falls under the "admission against interest" exception to the hearsay rule.

So, if the lady heard Roosevelt and her dad talking about something, and that lady then wishes to testify about what she heard, her testimony is hearsay. It might be admissibile under certain exceptions, but obviously hearsay evidence has potential weaknesses.

Well, sure, lots of problems... i am not saying i believe her testimony, and there are explanations of what might have been MEANT by the request assuming it was true: the most obvious is that FDR was expecting a conflict in the Pacific and wanted to stockpile emergency supplies.

And again i personally don't think FDR knew about the attack.

BUT: just because someone might believe there was a conspiracy in this instance does not mean:
A. they are (always) a crutch for simple minds.
B. a person who believes in one conspiracy believes in all conspiracy theories.

Conspiracies do exist, but are often difficult to prove. The fact that a conspiracy is difficult to prove is not proof that it does not exist.

[panda124c]

Facts, facts, don't muddy the water with facts, you can not prove that it was not a conspiriacy therefore it must have been. [:D]

Heinlein's Razor:

"Never attribute to villainy that which may be eadequately explained by stupidity."

[Cuttlefish]

Let's not forget my personal favorite, that the Apollo moon landings were staged.

ORIGINAL: thegreatwent

Conspiracy theories are a crutch for simple minds. Though truth is often stranger than fiction the nonsense found in many conspiracies is often unsupported. It depends on people not being able to disprove it as proof of it being factual rather than actual evidence[8|]

Give me real historical events and lives and they can astound more than any made up fancy. Rosa Luxemburg, Otto Skorzeny or Molly Brown could all have had their lives made into movies and nobody would believe them. Yet if I publish a pamphlet that infers that Branch Dividians were annihilated because they had broken the CIA's coded messages with aliens I would develop a following quickly [X(]

I think this is well put. People have a deep-seated need, I think, to believe that things happen for a reason and not because of random chance or human failure. In the case of Pearl Harbor it is almost comforting to some people to believe that Roosevelt knew what was going on and even brought it about. The alternative is to believe that the military and the government dropped the ball. This is kind of scary. If they dropped the ball once it might happen again...which brings us to 9/11 and more conspiracy theories.

The illusion that there are shadowy organizations in the US government (and elsewhere) that are more competent and all-knowing than what we see in operation every day makes what happens in the world seem a little less random and out of control.

This is not to say that there are no conspiracies ever. There have been some dandies in history. And they can be fun to speculate about and discuss. But I think that when looking at history Occam's razor needs to be wielded with some vigor. Simple explanations are usually more likely than secret and complex conspiracies.

[Canoerebel]

Speaking of hearsay, here's my favorite story (I wasn't there so this is hearsay, but I knew all participants so it's pretty reliable hearsay for what it's worth).
 
An lawyer from Atlanta was here in Rome, Georgia, representing the plaintiff in a big case.  A "country lawyer" from Rome was representing the defendant. 
 
The Atlanta lawyer moved to admit an affidavit from a witness.  The affidavit reported what the witness had seen.  The Rome lawyer objected on the basis that it was hearsay.  The Atlanta lawyer replied that it was a certified affidavit.  Rome lawyer:  "Then it's certified hearsay."  The judge refused to admit the affidavit.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: pbear

Facts, facts, don't muddy the water with facts, you can not prove that it was not a conspiriacy therefore it must have been. [:D]

Heinlein's Razor:

"Never attribute to villainy that which may be eadequately explained by stupidity."

[:D]
The variant i heard was (not by Heinlein) "Do not attribute something to malfeasance which can be explained by incompetence."

Of course, sometimes the two can overlap.[:D]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

I agree 100%. It seems that once a conspiracy theory starts, the ones that want to believe in the conspiracy so badly will put together 100 pieces of circumstantial evidence and say it adds up to fact. If you use facts on them, they will say that you are closed-minded and have your head buried in the sand.[8|]

This is not a new theory either. We see this sort of theory perpetuated over and over. Roosevelt and PH and even Bush and the Twin Towers. It's all a lot of bull.

[rtrapasso]

Simple explanations are usually more likely than secret and complex conspiracies.

Actually, i think it says the most simple explanation that fits all the evidence is the most likely explanation.

The problem then becomes: what is the evidence? If someone has a "fact" they say is evidence, one has to evaluate if it is truly a fact, or is it baloney.

For instance, a lot of the "facts" in the Moon Landing Conspiracy are based on photographic images from copies of the tapes and films. If you look at these, you can build a pretty good case for a conspiracy.

However, most of the stuff cited turns out to be distortions due to the duplication process - examination of the ORIGINAL tapes don't show the "facts" cited by the conspiracy proponents.

[pmelheck1]

I have the same view as others that we knew an attack was coming but the last place such an attack was expected was Pearl.  Messages that seem clear after the fact can seem cryptic at best before hand.  We have more than 60 years of hindsight to make accusations against people long dead.  Racisim also played a role in our views of the capabilities of the Japanese (a problem every country had).  The Japanese sailing most of her navy west toward the DEI and her CV's going dark of course means a strike on Pearl [8|].  One of the major issues I had with the link is the site is selling a book not looking at a historical event.  Most of these arguments I've been part of use faulty logic for their arguements.  1.  Road island reds are chickens, 2. fireman wear red suspenders their fore all firemen are chickens.  1.  We knew war was coming.  2. Pearl was attacked their fore we knew pearl was coming.
 

[bobogoboom]

I will say i do not think rosevelt or anyone else knew about PH. but they were trying to draw the japanesse into a incident that would of caused us to go to war. they though something would happen in the PI like one of our crusiers getting shot at. There are conspiracies but for such a wide ranging conspiracy as this to have happened people would of talked by now.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Speaking of hearsay, here's my favorite story (I wasn't there so this is hearsay, but I knew all participants so it's pretty reliable hearsay for what it's worth).

An lawyer from Atlanta was here in Rome, Georgia, representing the plaintiff in a big case. A "country lawyer" from Rome was representing the defendant.

The Atlanta lawyer moved to admit an affidavit from a witness. The affidavit reported what the witness had seen. The Rome lawyer objected on the basis that it was hearsay. The Atlanta lawyer replied that it was a certified affidavit. Rome lawyer: "Then it's certified hearsay." The judge refused to admit the affidavit.

Hmmm... i am intrigued by these distinctions. Maybe this is OT, but:

OK - i can understand why someone testifying that they heard a defendant bragging about a murder is hearsay (even if admissible): the information about the murder came from another party, and you don't have direct knowledge of the murder.

However, if you testify that someone requests another person to do something in your presence, do you not have direct evidence of the request?

If, by example if A and B are talking to C, and C requests B to perform an illegal act (let's say it is murder of D); D gets murdered. Then A goes to the police tells them what they know and C is arrested (and there is other evidence to support that C is responsible for the crime).

So - A's testimony about the circumstances is hearsay? [&:]

[greg_slith]

I think a certain amount of Jingoism is at play, too.  It is sometimes easier for people to think that "we" allowed PH or 9/11 to happen than to admit that "those people", who were stereotyped as little Mr. Moto's with Coke-bottle glasses or bomb weilding, turban wearing terrorists, actually got the drop on us.  Some people expect that the gov't is all-seeing, all-knowing and could tell you what I had for breakfast yesterday. But the gov (and military/intel folk) are bureaucracies, too.  All the facts that pointed to PH and 9/11 were there but there was NOT one person or group who had all the facts who could say "Uh, guys? There's six Japanese carriers just north of Hawaii.  Whatya suppose THEY'RE up too?"
  Thank goodness nobody's brought up the Kennedy assassinatin.[&o] 

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

I think a certain amount of Jingoism is at play, too. It is sometimes easier for people to think that "we" allowed PH or 9/11 to happen than to admit that "those people", who were stereotyped as little Mr. Moto's with Coke-bottle glasses or bomb weilding, turban wearing terrorists, actually got the drop on us. Some people expect that the gov't is all-seeing, all-knowing and could tell you what I had for breakfast yesterday. But the gov (and military/intel folk) are bureaucracies, too. All the facts that pointed to PH and 9/11 were there but there was NOT one person or group who had all the facts who could say "Uh, guys? There's six Japanese carriers just north of Hawaii. Whatya suppose THEY'RE up too?"
Thank goodness nobody's brought up the Kennedy assassinatin.[&o]

Yes thank goodness nobody mentioned that Dick Cheney was "duck hunting" on the grassy knoll. [:D]

[thegreatwent]

Thank goodness nobody's brought up the Kennedy assassinatin.

D'oh, you just did. [X(] We're all doomed[X(]

My choice is Oliver Stone on the grassy knoll with Col. Mustards ketchup bottle[:D][:D][:D]

[Charbroiled]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Maybe this is OT, but:

OT? OT? Who's been on-topic?[:D]

Nobody has answered my original questions, but I don't really mind. The direction this post has gone was not my intention, but it has been interesting to read.[8D]

[Big B]

That is a bit...odd. I don't know, there was an interesting book written a few years ago called Day of Deceit.
For years I never believed in PH conspiracy stuff, but these days I'm not so sure.

But it is also apparent that seriously talking about it is heresy, so I'll leave it at that...

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Not sure about about the unstable part... my father (who was a participant in the war) had followed the investigations with some interest, and was particularly "amused" when several tons of documents subpoenaed by Congress were "accidentally diverted to an incinerator". Layton (who wrote "And I Was There") also recounts the disappearance of many key documents in the investigation.

[Cuttlefish]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Simple explanations are usually more likely than secret and complex conspiracies.

Actually, i think it says the most simple explanation that fits all the evidence is the most likely explanation.

You are correct. If a simple explanation does not fit the evidence then a more complex explanation is necessary. It is also true that Occam's razor is a guiding principal and not a scientific or philosphical rule. The simplest explanation that fits the facts isn't necessarily the correct one; it's just that that's the way to bet.

I know this to be true because that's how the aliens who escaped from Roswell explained it to me, and they are very smart.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Big B

That is a bit...odd. I don't know, there was an interesting book written a few years ago called Day of Deceit.
For years I never believed in PH conspiracy stuff, but these days I'm not so sure.

But it is also apparent that seriously talking about it is heresy, so I'll leave it at that...

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Not sure about about the unstable part... my father (who was a participant in the war) had followed the investigations with some interest, and was particularly "amused" when several tons of documents subpoenaed by Congress were "accidentally diverted to an incinerator". Layton (who wrote "And I Was There") also recounts the disappearance of many key documents in the investigation.

BigB, I don't think anybody minds a serious discussion about history. The trouble with discussing something like Pearl Harbor is that the conspiracy advocates generally want to shape the conversation by (1) discounting credible evidence; (2) relying upon evidence that is incredible; and (3) accusing those who disagree with them of burying their heads in the sand (as another person pointed out previously in this AAR).

Sometimes it's simply impossible to have a serious discussion though. Like those who deny the holocaust. How are you supposed to reason with them? It's impossible.