Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Allen v. Farrow Analysis | Was Woody Allen Guilty? Are False Allegations Common?" video.

@pagemastrogiovanni9195 Not correct. If someone asks me whether I heard Person A say something, and I did, I can testify to the fact that I heard Person A say it. What I cannot do is testify in Person A's place, as to whether Person A made a true statement, why they said what they said, etc. The bare fact of Person A saying something, or making any sound, is something I can testify to, if I personally heard Person A. Suppose this: a woman testifies to being raped. The defense contends she had a consensual relationship with the assailant and made up a rape story later. Can her friend testify that she claimed she was assaulted the very next day? Can hospital personnel testify to that as well? How else would you prove prior consistent statements? Her prior consistent statements don't prove she was raped (she might not have been truthful all along). They do prove she was saying the same thing all along.
5
@neongirluk He did not make any such claim. He reported that the assertion was made. This is accurate. If one person says something, and another person hears it, the latter can report hearing it as long as they make clear that they aren't endorsing it by reporting it. Another example: students report overhearing a school shooting suspect cry about having been bullied. That doesn't prove he was bullied. It's evidence that he once SAID he was bullied, and that he was crying when he SAID it.
3
Dotard Trump A videotape made outside of court can be introduced into evidence if properly authenticated by in-court testimony, and can be used to prove Person A said what is heard and seen in the video. It cannot be used to prove Person A was being truthful at the time. It might be excluded anyway, as being more prejudicial than probative, etc., but in principle it can be evidence. How do you think we have evidence that certain victims of police brutality who died pleaded for their lives? It's on video. It has to be authenticated before it's played to a jury.
2
@feelthejoy You must have meant to tag someone else. There was a "hearsay" duscussion related to when this abuse was reported, etc. My point was that a prior consistent statement can be introduced into evidence for a limited purpose, and is not hearsay for that purpose. That would mean that if someone without a mark on them were, for example, to state to a friend that they were just molested right after it happened, and they are later accused of making the story up, there are ways to introduce their prior consistent statement to show they always said so. It cannot substitute for their own testimony. The point is, their story then and their story now are consistent. (And even if it weren't, it could be true, but that's a separate issue.)
2
@feelthejoy Where did I so much as hint that they did?
1
@feelthejoy Late to the party.
1
@zeidenmedia Correct, they were never married. Yet they had a child together and adopted a child together. Hence they had a relationship akin to marriage, and were parents of Soon-Yi Previn's siblings. It's a question of ethics. Obviously marrying Soon-Yi was legal. No impediment whatsoever. But who thinks this could be ethical? (Also, it isn't evidence either way about the abuse allegations.)
1
@zeidenmedia I made clear what I think. Perhaps you could reread it without your bias? He did co-parent two of Soon-Yi's siblings. That raises an ethical issue, not a legal one. People often disagree on ethics. The issue of the ethics of unmarried people adopting together is also raised, but we all know we dare not go there! But now that we have marriage equity, and adoption equity, I think it is fair to bring it up. Not to judge, but to raise the question. Or, to put it another way, single and unmarried couples should think it through carefully before they do it. KIDS COME FIRST. They have to.
1
@zeidenmedia I don't care enough to bother, frankly.
1
@zeidenmedia No problem.
1