Hey ESPN.....

[bsmooth]

Having just watched his press conference I am full confident he is guilty.

He called the allegations false and reckless. 

What he did not do was either state that it was consenual sex nor state that they did not have sex at all.  His failure to state either of those leads me to believe his attys want to leave their options open. 

Myabe becuase his attorneys know that the hotel is going to destroy her and any credibility she has.

[Pats2006]

Isn't Big Ben's alleged sexual assault newsworthy. Nothing on your website, or your 50 channels of programming. Yet, if this were an African American QB this would be everywhere. Some consistency BSPN, please!!!

If it was Tom Brady it would have been on ESPN. 

[fyo]

What you're describing is not hearsay by federal standards. If a witness recounts a party's statement (or even the statement of a party's agent), it's an admission, and not subject to the hearsay exclusion.

It is hearsay. I consider us the court (not tmz.com) and thus we're not hearing direct testimony of someone hearing a conversation. I don't consider reporters to be purveyors of truth, so the reporter doing the story must certainly be taken into account when considering the "closeness" to the source.

If the source came forward and told his story in front of all, THEN it would not be hearsay. What we're getting is some reporter claiming that some source only he knows is telling him that Roethlistberger told him something.

In fact, it's not even completely clear that the source told the reporter that he had it directly from Roethlisberger. The source just claimed to know that Roethlisberger "insisted it was purely consensual". Nothing about how the source had his (or her) information. That part could have been first hand or third hand, for all we know. (Even if it were first hand, the report would still be hearsay, as argued above).

In essence, I realize Ben called the charges false by calling them reckless.

I haven't listened to his statement, but media are reporting him as having said (among other things): "The allegations against me are reckless and false"

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

It is hearsay. I consider us the court (not tmz.com) and thus we're not hearing direct testimony of someone hearing a conversation. I don't consider reporters to be purveyors of truth, so the reporter doing the story must certainly be taken into account when considering the "closeness" to the source.

If the source came forward and told his story in front of all, THEN it would not be hearsay. What we're getting is some reporter claiming that some source only he knows is telling him that Roethlistberger told him something.

In fact, it's not even completely clear that the source told the reporter that he had it directly from Roethlisberger. The source just claimed to know that Roethlisberger "insisted it was purely consensual". Nothing about how the source had his (or her) information. That part could have been first hand or third hand, for all we know. (Even if it were first hand, the report would still be hearsay, as argued above).

Me thinks fro has a better handle on the FRE than SCFinfan.  Although I would be a bit loser FRO, if TMZ (or other media) had a direct quote from a named source I would not consider it hearsey.  (still inadmissable in court, but I would treat TMZ as the stenogropher then.