By Curt_Anderson June 28, 2022 10:18 pm Category: Crime (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

Almost fifty years ago I managed a late night coffee house here in Ashland. One night a customer comes in and tells this story about a mugging and robbing of old man he said he had just witnessed. I forget why he said he didn't intervene, but he didn't. I said he should tell the police his story. He declined saying he didn't want to get involved. So after he left I called the cops. I asked if there was a reported robbery and the police confirmed there was. They sent a cop over to interview me. Ashland doesn't get many muggings.

I told the cop just what the customer told me. I repeated the story including the description of the perpetrator as precisely as I could. I specifically repeated that the mugger had "steel blue eyes" and some other details the customer said. The cop wrote this all down. Sure enough, it matched the description that the cops heard from the victim.

A few days later, I asked somebody in the police department if they caught the mugger/robber. It turns out there was no mugger/robber. The "victim" admitted he made the story up.

When the old guy told the story to the cops he described his supposed assailant as having "steel blue eyes". The customer who told me that he witnessed the mugging really didn't see any crime. He either overheard the old guy talking to police or the old guy had repeated the story to the customer. Had I not repeated the description practically verbatim, the cops might not have been suspicious of tale. It was highly unlikely that to two people would independently describe somebody as having "steel blue eyes".

What I told the cops was hearsay. Like Cassidy Hutchinson, I never pretended otherwise. In investigations hearsay evidence is accepted for what it is. As it turns out my hearsay solved a case.

Comments Start Below

by oldedude on June 29, 2022 5:47 am Okay, having been in multi-state task forces, I can tell you that hearsay was okay for catching a person on the street level. This is a FEDERAL kangaroo court. No real lawyer (not someone with TDS and no law degree) would ever get any hearsay, especially when they know who actually saw it and didn't call them to testify. Why didn't they get the people that were actually there to testify? It makes no sense. At all. Okay, let's "assume" that you blind sheep are correct. It's not a "real" court (which I'll agree with). "WITNESSES" (key word) are under oath to tell the truth. If they lie, they can be sentenced to jail. The only reason is they knew she was going to tell a story is the dumbass sheep would believe it. They won't bring anyone that actually saw the episode actually testify because they would tell the truth. Can't have that in their court. I didn't understand how bad TDS really is. This confounds me, that people can't see this is the Kavanaugh trial again. Same sht, different lies, and you are making a mockery of the house and our system. And you're too stoopid to see it. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 5:49 am "In investigations hearsay evidence is accepted for what it is. As it turns out my hearsay solved a case." Except you didn't lie about the information you were given. That's the key. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 6:12 am I just adore hearing Republicans, the designers an orchestrators of those flabbergastingly asinine Benghazi and email hearings that revealed no criminal activity at all even vaguely worthy of a single indictment and we're only intended totally for show, refer to any other congressional hearings as a "kangaroo court". That is just rich beyond words. I'm telling ya, these guys are masters of projection. It's like it constitutes their entire beings. They are so pathetic. But as has been proven in here dozens of times, it's all they got. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 6:15 am This confounds me, that people can't see this is the Kavanaugh trial again." It is. It's in woke DNA. I'll bet you that po still believes Anita Hill!!!!!!!!!! Precious! by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 6:22 am po: I just adore hearing Republicans, the designers an orchestrators of those flabbergastingly asinine... Please, po. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE. Please STOP. I barely slept last night for laughing. You gotta please stop!!!!!! by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 6:31 am So you don't think Trump committed any crimes. The hearings have uncovered nothing. I expected no less from one of his most devout followers. by islander on June 29, 2022 6:49 am You're right Curt. This is congressional investigation of possible crimes, it isn’t a criminal trial. A police investigation also isn’t a criminal trial. How should detectives respond to hearsay testimony from a person in a crime they are investigating? Police get a phone call from someone saying that his friend told him that he heard some loud shouting and what sounded like a gunshot coming from the apartment above him at around 5 a.m. that morning. The caller didn’t hear the shot or arguing himself, he heard it from somebody else. Should it be dismissed because it is hearsay? Of course not...It’s not a criminal trial. Police find a woman murdered when they go to the address. Detectives investigating the case question people they think might have information regarding the murder.. Another neighbor says that the murdered woman told her that her husband had threatened her on several occasions, she herself never heard the husband threaten the woman. Should the detectives dismiss her testimony because it is hearsay? Of course not. It’s an investigation, not a criminal trial. Sometimes hearsay evidence is admissible in court other times it isn't. If it should go to court, should the investigators or the judge determine the relevancy of the hearsay testimony? I think we all agree that it should be the judge...But this is not a criminal trial. The committee is simply revealing the evidence it has found so far, it will be up to a court of law to determine if any crimes were committed and the guilt or innocence of anyone charged. We can look at the evidence presented so far and weigh it, but we have no authority to "legally" determine the guilt or innocence of anyone. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 6:49 am po, I said from the beginning that I doubt everything that comes from this Show Trial. Also, other than noting that Trump's an SOB, even if you believe the Committee...even if you believe every word from Ms Hutchinson [do you, still?]...I don't see a crime. Not yet. What crime do you see? by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 6:54 am So, isle, what do you think of the Committee getting virtually no firsthand testimony from Ms Hutchinson... ...after creating so much drama around her testimony?... ...even ignoring the fact that members of the Secret Service are volunteering to testify under oath that their part of her story is false? by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 7:29 am "I said from the beginning that I doubt everything that comes from this Show Trial." -Hate And if you want to be such a narrow minded cult follower, that is certainly within your rights to be so. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that that is a logical and rational position to hold. Willful blindness is not a defense for being so astoundingly pig-ignorant. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 7:39 am "Just don't fool yourself into thinking that that is a logical and rational position to hold. Willful blindness is not a defense for being so astoundingly pig-ignorant." That's what I just told you... by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 7:41 am Thanks anyways, od. But I don't really need corroboration about what a pig-ignorant cult follower Hate is. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 7:41 am I keep asking myself why the Dems won't let the GOPs appoint their own members to the Committee. I don't know. But, it could be that they want to lie. And, they did. And, they're busted. Right? by islander on June 29, 2022 7:42 am "So, isle, what do you think of the Committee getting virtually no firsthand testimony from Ms Hutchinson..." Her testimony was not virtually all hearsay. Aside from that, what hearsay testimony she gave, I take as exactly that...hearsay testimony. Some, like the secrete service agents stopping Trump from grabbing the steering wheel I take with a grain of salt. She was simply relating what she was told by Ornato who is the Assistant Director of the Office of Training within the United States Secret Service. I'd really like to hear what he and the secrete service agents had to say under oath, in the mean time I'm withholding making any kind of judgment on its veracity. by islander on June 29, 2022 7:50 am "What crime do you see?" Right off the bat from yesterdays testimony alone I see a good chance for a charge of reckless endangerment. "Reckless endangerment is a more serious charge, most commonly used when the endangering act is serious and risky enough that it could result in serious injury or death to another person. Reckless endangerment is typically categorized as a felony, which can carry with it penalties of more than 1 year in prison if convicted of the offense." experiencedcriminallawyers.com by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 7:55 am Fair enough, isle, but my question is about the Committee. Almost all of what Ms Hutchinson testified to border on gossip. My impression... He said something on the order of... I was told... My opinion was... That's what comes up when grey haired ladies get together with knitting needles. Gossip. Do you really think that's appropriate for a televised congressional hearing? by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 8:00 am Again, this is not a criminal court. It's an investigation. Heresay evidence is evidence. It is not meaningless. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 8:12 am Before the Big Secret Service Lie part emerged, I was saying that nuthin she said is admissible in court and I was wondering why the Committee created all the brouhaha with this mystery witness. Now?, well maybe we know. It was all about lie. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 8:17 am But lying to congress is not okay. That's the difference between how we're looking at this. I still think they should have gone to the origin of the story to tell it first person to avoid this. That's just common sense. But I think they knew what the others would say, so they brought the one that will lie, and not let other witnesses be called. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 8:26 am I agree. I'm suggesting that the House members of the Committee engineered this lie that! they've been busted in. It could be time for some impeachments! by Donna on June 29, 2022 8:28 am Regarding the alleged limo incident, Hutchinson told the committee what she said Ornato told her. I don't see how that's perjury as you insist it is. Even if Ornato later denies that he told her that, it's still his word against hers. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 8:29 am Mark Levin: The Committee of Liars must allow the two Secret Service agents who accused Hutchison of lying to testify in public. Absolutely! by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 8:36 am Again, have at it. Knock yerselves out. Let them testify under oath. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 11:02 am No, po. It's under oath...IN PUBLIC. by Curt_Anderson on June 29, 2022 11:48 am "No, po. It's under oath...IN PUBLIC." --HtS Are you saying one or both of the Secret Service agents testified under oath disputing Hutchinson's recollection of what she was told about the steering wheel? This I've got to see. Link? by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 12:10 pm Mark Levin is saying that the Secret Service agents who are challenging Ms Hutchinson's testimony should be brought before the Committee to testify live and publicly without the Committee's canning and pre-planning. by oldedude on June 29, 2022 12:18 pm "Regarding the alleged limo incident, Hutchinson told the committee what she said Ornato told her. I don't see how that's perjury as you insist it is. Even if Ornato later denies that he told her that, it's still his word against hers." You're still not reading our posts. At all. She has two strikes. If the Secret Service testifies, they have a lot more sway than she does. And they both (the Secret Service and Ornato) came up with the same story. Like I said before, my guess is that the SS folks have been polygraphed on this. She's a low level without much vetting. It's believability of her and shifty. The dims lied about Kavanaugh through their teeth. Enough to create a story that didn't happen. Would they do it again? Absolutely. Since the Secret Service came out as an Agency, that means something. It means they've vetted their agents and chose to get in this fight. They haven't taken a back seat. If it were the two agents and Secret Service didn't say a word? eh? I might agree with you. How little the sheep actually understand about how the government works. My question is; if someone lied to dump pedojoe, you'd call for him to be publicly hung. Right? Ya'lls TDS is getting really being be a PITA. But I guess that's the religion of sheeplism. by Curt_Anderson on June 29, 2022 12:32 pm So they did NOT dispute her story under oath. Got it. Here is my prediction: Ornato and Engel will REFUSE to testify under oath before the 1/6 committee. That's because both are reportedly Trump yes-men. They would recoil like vampires at the thought of providing testimony regarding Hutchinson's central claims, such as: She said that Ornato was the person who informed Meadows that some Trump supporters attempting to enter the Ellipse rally were armed. She said that Trump angrily demanded that his armed supporters be let in. Ornato and Engel can testify about whether Trump actually did want to go to the Capitol and what happened then. I am confident that they won't discuss any of that under oath. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 12:42 pm Curt, What launched this is their statement that they would testify under oath. She said that Ornato was the person who informed Meadows that some Trump supporters attempting to enter the Ellipse rally were armed. She said that Trump angrily demanded that his armed supporters be let in. So far, Curt, everything we know of that she said that has been tested, has been wrong. Have you considered that she may be, at best, very unreliable. She's either a liar or a disreputable gossip. I'm confident they will testify... ...and, it will be bad, bad news for Ms Hutchinson. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 1:31 pm "She's a low level without much vetting." -Hate Uh huh. First of all, we're talking the Trump administration. You'd have to employ a dictionary to get him or anyone in his staff to even understand what the word means. Second of all, "low level"...? With a desk a door or two down the hall from the Oval Office...? Aide to the president's chief of staff...? Usually everywhere the chief of staff and often the president are...? Geez. Trump's kids are gonna be bummed to learn of their true status according to you. by HatetheSwamp on June 29, 2022 1:36 pm This is not a quote of pb. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 1:38 pm My sincere apologies, Bill. That was of course a quote of something olde dude said. Consider it directed at him. by Ponderer on June 29, 2022 1:40 pm Truthfully, It didn't seem natural that he would say something that stupid. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page