Eastenders - Current Episode Discussion - VIII

[Glen1]

I have to say I'm not really understanding Inspector Mars Bar's investigation. Does she not have written evidence that Phil was involved in the car lot fire that killed the tramp? Why does she not use this to arrest Phil? The evidence as regards Stella is tenuous to say the least and the CCTV film is unequivocal that he did NOT push her. Ben's evidence is second hand and any lawyer would rip it to shreds. Why not get him for the murder she has more substantial proof for?

Agree ,and there certainly wouldn't be enough evidence for a court to remand him in custody for the Stella incident.

[Dennis tanner]

I have to say I'm not really understanding Inspector Mars Bar's investigation. Does she not have written evidence that Phil was involved in the car lot fire that killed the tramp? Why does she not use this to arrest Phil? The evidence as regards Stella is tenuous to say the least and the CCTV film is unequivocal that he did NOT push her. Ben's evidence is second hand and any lawyer would rip it to shreds. Why not get him for the murder she has more substantial proof for?

It's not second hand. It's evidence of a confession made by Phil Mitchell , the accused.

Agree ,and there certainly wouldn't be enough evidence for a court to remand him in custody for the Stella incident.

It's the same soap courts that got Phil relased from prison when he was bang to rights

[tammyy2j]

Ok, I might have missed something but can anyone tell me why Jean won GBP8,000 and what happened about the fraud charges she was meant to be facing regarding Mo falsely claiming for her?

Did Jean give or throw away the money or I could be wrong completely?

DI Marsden or Mars Bar is like a stalker

[parkerman]

It's not second hand. It's evidence of a confession made by Phil Mitchell , the accused.

Of course it's second hand. It's Ben telling the police what Phil told him. That's the definition of second hand. It's not Phil telling the police what he did. That would be first hand.

[sarah c]

Of course it's second hand. It's Ben telling the police what Phil told him. That's the definition of second hand. It's not Phil telling the police what he did. That would be first hand.

we are talking heresay are we not here? which is not admissable in Court, or I might be wrong...

[sarah c]

Ok, I might have missed something but can anyone tell me why Jean won GBP8,000 and what happened about the fraud charges she was meant to be facing regarding Mo falsely claiming for her?

Jean won the money on a scratch card, but I cant remember what she did with it.

the benefit fraud hasnt been mentionned since,

[Dennis tanner]

Did Jean give or throw away the money or I could be wrong completely?

DI Marsden or Mars Bar is like a stalker

She threw some money away but it wasn't hers

Of course it's second hand. It's Ben telling the police what Phil told him. That's the definition of second hand. It's not Phil telling the police what he did. That would be first hand.

Anything said by the accused to a witness is not hearsay evidence. If Ben gave evidence in court, anything that he reported that Phil had said to him would not be second hand and it would be admissable.

It would be second hand and hearsay evidence if the Police reported what Ben told them.

[parkerman]

we are talking heresay are we not here? which is not admissable in Court, or I might be wrong...

It is hearsay but confessions to a third party are allowed in court under certain circumstances. One of these is to corroborate other evidence, which in this case, is singularly lacking. The defence can challenge the nature of the confession before the trial starts and a hearing would be heard on whether in this particular case the evidence can be produced at the trial. If it is obvious that the person reporting the alleged confession has his or her own agenda it would undoubtedly be thrown out. So I think there would be more than enough grounds for Phil's lawyers to get it ruled out in this case.

Which brings us back to the question, why doesn't Inspector Mars Bar follow up the written evidence on the car lot fire instead of wasting time on this?

[parkerman]

Anything said by the accused to a witness is not hearsay evidence. If Ben gave evidence in court, anything that he reported that Phil had said to him would not be second hand and it would be admissable.

You're confusing the fact of being told with what is being told.

If Phil tells Ben that he murdered someone then Ben's evidence in court is first hand in respect of the fact that Phil told him he had murdered someone but second hand as an account of the crime and would fall under the hearsay rules as applied to evidence that I outlined above.

[Glen1]

You're confusing the fact of being told with what is being told.

If Phil tells Ben that he murdered someone then Ben's evidence in court is first hand in respect of the fact that Phil told him he had murdered someone but second hand as an account of the crime and would fall under the hearsay rules as applied to evidence that I outlined above.

Even with fully stretching the boundaries for TV storyline credability , the CPS would not take this to court based solely on hearsay evidence from one person, who is easily proven as predjudiced ,been recently convicted of a serious assault. who lied at the time. and who under questioning would show himself to be a complete knobhead. As has already been said there's more evidence with the car lot fire to prosecute.