-=> Quoting Steve Kemp to Fred Austin <=-
 ->     Obviously Steve you know little of law.  Eyewitness is hearsay?
 SK> Yep.
    That definition is still wrong.  
 SK> When someone tells you they saw a UFO they are doing JUST THAT! You
 SK> are just the "I" in your example.
 SK> And hearsay IS admissible, but it has to be supported by evidence.
 ->  You certainly have it backwards.
 SK> Nope. Eye witnesses's tend to be wrong, and sometimes even liars. The
SK>  need  for  PHYSICAL  EVIDENCE is  required.
SK> Thus, UFO eyewitness accounts are not proof. If they were then alien
 SK> visitations would be proven. That isn't the case. WHY? Because there
 SK> is no valid and substantiated physical evidence to support that
 SK> eyewitness testimony.
    Roger,  you  will have  to excuse  this,but since  this now  deals with 
Ufology, this will be the last legal aspect of this strange twisted debate,
First Steve, I corrected you on legalities concerning  courts.  Ufology  is 
not a criminal issue.  It is not a crime to claim to have seen  a UFO,  nor 
is the  court system  going to  prosecute such  a person,  nor can  a court 
substantiate a claim, as you say without "physical  evidence".  No  one has 
tried to bring a case for UFO's to court, to what end.  They have  tried to 
take the NSA /CIA to court  for "withholding  information from  the public" 
but that was squashed  under the  National Security  clause.  Without  hard 
physical evidence it is difficult to prove a crime existed  (legally),as it 
is to prove a UFO exists (legally).
    I do not see the point of trying to twist  legal definitions  around to 
UFology, it resolves nothing, because these definitions are applicable to
criminal trials.  But as you wish.  
1: As above "Eyewitness tend to be liars  and wrong":  If liars  its called 
perjury, and punishable by  jail, attorneys  challenge "eyewitnesses",  and 
attempt to dissuade juries as to their credibility,or  relevance,depending on 
the case.  No UFO case has ever been brought to court, because what would a 
jury  do  with  such  a case.   In truth,  if enough  credible people  were 
assembled, a jury may find for  the case  and witnesses,  but to  what end.  
None.
2: Eyewitness is not hearsay,
    Ok, my last word, under Canadian law,from a book on  Canadian law,  for 
what it is worth,if other countries are different so be it....
[from section "how our legal system works", You And The Law. 1978.]
And quote:
    Items of what is called circumstantial evidence are considered as valid 
evidence if they give support to  the prosecution's  case that  the accused 
performed  the  criminal  act.   While  such  testimony  will   usually  be 
corroborated  by  independent  evidence,  this  is  not  essential   for  a 
conviction.   As  a  general  rule,  hearsay  will  not  be  permitted   as 
evidence,because the original speaker is not in the witness box under oath.
In a murder case,an exception is sometimes made for remarks  attributed to
the deceased before his death.
So  therefore  Steve  if  all eyewitnesses  are hearsay,  I guess  we would 
certainly have very few trials.......  This case is closed.  
Happy Trails,
Fred.
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
---------------