Coming soon: The Devil Is In The Details

[Larry Hancock]

Certainly whoever wrote that review has no concerns about disclosing their attitude....it appears to be a critique of form without much commentary on the content of the actual research/information which would be revealed in any dialog with Malcolm.  And having a dialog with someone who knows as much detail as Malcolm does is extremely challenging in and of itself - been there, done that, wondered around and got lost periodically myself.  

[James DiEugenio]

Ron, it sure does fit Lance's initials

http://www.lawyerdb.org/Lawyer/Lance-Payette/

BTW, I have to say if I have not already.  If you recall, when I asked Lance all those questions about how he would get certain pieces of evidence into court in the JFK case with all the chain of custody problems they entail, this is when he got really venomous. Said I was drooling on my keyboard, when in fact I was just reciting facts about the problems in the chain that most of us are familiar with.

It turns out that Lance consults with the Arizona authorities on just that area concerning drug busts. That is how to avoid chain of custody questions in court in the collection of evidence. So he likely knew about all these problems and how they would be called, in California, a 402 hearing.  Which is an evidentiary hearing done to measure whether or not  evidence can be admitted in court. Can you imagine trying to get CE 399 past a judge at a 402?  BTW, each state has its own name for these types of hearings.

402 hearings

402 hearings are preliminary fact determinations to decide the admissibility of evidence. When the admissibility of evidence depends on the existence of a particular fact, that fact is called a “preliminary fact.” (Evid. Code, § 400.)  The ability to establish such a preliminary fact may affect the trial not only in substantive terms and determining what particular evidence is admitted, but also in terms of scheduling and practical considerations. Moreover, due process is a central component behind Section 400. If evidence is excluded, and a party does not have the ability to conduct or present evidence at a hearing regarding a material, preliminary fact, this is reversible error per se and will result in overturning the case. (See Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659.) Under Evidence Code section 402, therefore, parties are provided a means by which preliminary facts can be presented, typically outside the presence of a jury.

 

Edited November 16, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Andrej Stancak]

I bought the book and am in the middle of Chapter 3. While I cannot subscribe to the LBP's rant against distinguished researchers, I have difficulties extracting coherent bits of information from the transcribed interviews published in this book. I also dislike frequent back tapping which works as a distraction. In any field, a researcher, conducting a systematic research as Malcolm Blunt clearly has done, has both the right and duty to pass the acquired findings to the community. To communicate the results of a research efficiently is often more difficult and time consuming than acquiring data. As I am not finished with the book yet, I still hope to find coherent and well described findings of Malcolm Blunt's own research in this book when I get to subsequent chapters.

[Vince Palamara]

20 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Might this be Lance Payette?

Several other people said so, yes. Now his review has been deleted!

[Allen Lowe]

I am reading the Kindle version. Obviously this is an essential set of interviews, though I think that anyone who comes to it without extensive background will be completely unable to discern the points and threads. I do wish they had edited it down to isolate the more essential comments - and then at times, also, they seem to suddenly abandon interesting points  of interest because they know what these mean (though I often don't).

Still, it has fascinating fragments that, given my own years of reading, I can still assimilate fairly well (and then of course there's Google to fill in a lot of blanks).

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Allen Lowe

[Vince Palamara]

On 11/16/2020 at 5:18 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Ron, it sure does fit Lance's initials

http://www.lawyerdb.org/Lawyer/Lance-Payette/

BTW, I have to say if I have not already.  If you recall, when I asked Lance all those questions about how he would get certain pieces of evidence into court in the JFK case with all the chain of custody problems they entail, this is when he got really venomous. Said I was drooling on my keyboard, when in fact I was just reciting facts about the problems in the chain that most of us are familiar with.

It turns out that Lance consults with the Arizona authorities on just that area concerning drug busts. That is how to avoid chain of custody questions in court in the collection of evidence. So he likely knew about all these problems and how they would be called, in California, a 402 hearing.  Which is an evidentiary hearing done to measure whether or not  evidence can be admitted in court. Can you imagine trying to get CE 399 past a judge at a 402?  BTW, each state has its own name for these types of hearings.

402 hearings

402 hearings are preliminary fact determinations to decide the admissibility of evidence. When the admissibility of evidence depends on the existence of a particular fact, that fact is called a “preliminary fact.” (Evid. Code, § 400.)  The ability to establish such a preliminary fact may affect the trial not only in substantive terms and determining what particular evidence is admitted, but also in terms of scheduling and practical considerations. Moreover, due process is a central component behind Section 400. If evidence is excluded, and a party does not have the ability to conduct or present evidence at a hearing regarding a material, preliminary fact, this is reversible error per se and will result in overturning the case. (See Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659.) Under Evidence Code section 402, therefore, parties are provided a means by which preliminary facts can be presented, typically outside the presence of a jury.

 

LBP is back with a NEW one-star detailed review LOL

[Matt Allison]

Is this book a transcript of the interviews on Alan Dale's site, or is there newer stuff?