In California it is illlegal to record someone without telling them. They can't use those tapes in court.
Printable View
In California it is illlegal to record someone without telling them. They can't use those tapes in court.
I thought I read there is an exception to that law in California in the case of terrorizing threats to the one doing the recording.Quote:
Originally Posted by MsDiva2007;3982266;
They may or may not be able to use the tapes in court, but the police can use them in their investigation because of the threats he made. He's under criminal investigation right now for terroristic threats, death threats and I forget what else.
These tapes being made public gives others who cross Gibson's path a greater awareness of what he is capable of. And I'm not sure how that could be a negative thing particularly for those think Oksana should have known better. Many abusers are very charming individuals who are adept at convincing others that they have changed and Mel Gibson is an actor, after all.
I could care less about most personal details about people's lives (unless they've specifically signed up for that on a reality show) - including who hooks up with who. Married or not, I consider hook ups all between just the people involved -- but potential physical abuse is a crime not a personal, private matter.
And people who are educated about abuse have extreme reactions to it because it is extreme in terms of being completely unacceptable. There is no excuse to justify verbal, emotional, physical abuse and death threats. None.
There is no 'I'm against abuse but I'm going to assume she's a gold digger and, therefore, in some ways deserved it'.
There is nothing any person does to deserve abuse. No human being ever provokes it, causes it, or asks for it and there is no justification for it. Not ever. That is blaming the victim. The only person responsible for abuse is the abuser. Not the victim.
Thanks, I'll be careful not to call them married again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stargazer
It's the fact that he could buy his way through that makes me waffle on my opinion about whether or not the tapes should be made public.Quote:
Originally Posted by prhoshay;3982179;
It's a tough one. I hate to hear people's dirty laundry, fights, etc., aired for the world to hear, especially when it's not the entire fight, but only bits and pieces.
NOTHING justifies Mel's admission of abuse or his death threats. That, I suppose, should be exposed (at least in transcript). The rest is an ugly fight between a highly disfunctional couple. Beyond all of this, I hope the guy gets some fricken help. Doesn't he have some family that gives a care?
O NOES! Another day, another tape released. This one is Tape #4.
From what I can see, this one is the first in the sequence of calls. He's particularly horrid in this one (angry because she fell asleep instead of being up to *ahem* "service" him when he arrived before a long dip in a Jacuzzi. It was a long day, she was tired after taking care of the baby, he was later than expected and she fell asleep. But Mel cares nothing about these things. She fell asleep on purpose just to annoy him, and for that indignity "he should have awaken her lazy self" and forced her to do things that are way too graphic to print here. Oh, and he wants to burn the house down with her in it...but only after she does more unmentionable things to him.
More heavy breathing like he's running a 5k race while on the phone, more abuse, she finally gets fed up with him and tells him that he needs help--which brings on more abuse. At one point, she brings up his therapist (!), to which he tells her to " get her OWN GD THERAPIST--but that she should pay this new therapist with HIS money"...because he owns her, of course.
More abuse, more abuse, and at one point she gets fed up and he hears the dial tone. This ties in perfectly with the beginning of the first tape that was released (where he growls at her "Don't hang up on me again."
What a horrible, horrible man. This reminds me of that guy from Iowa who kidnapped his wife when she was trying to divorce him who forced her to sign a "marital contract" (if you enjoy having normal blood pressure I strongly advise you NOT to Google this).
After I had left my, now, ex, and we would have unpleasant conversations on the telephone....to my knowledge they were nothing like what stupid Mel would say (and the ex- could go on and on and on)....whereas I would be tempted to hang up on his stupidity, I would just lay the phone down and walk away! I'd eventually come back to a dead line. I cannot tell you how satisfying that was! :lol That cracked me up!!! :lol I can hear it now....."Hello? Hello??...." I was calm and he was looking stupid in front of himself!! :clap:clap:up
Wasn't Mel's most-recent movie entitled "The Edge of Darkness"? Wow...such irony. It's not the Edge of Darkness, but rather over the Edge of darkness at this point. What a raving lunatic. Good God.
That is correct, if there are threats or any sort of criminal activity is divulged then there is an exception to that law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Florimel;3982371;
They might not come into play in the custody battle, but there is still her 12 year old son who lived with them and could testify as to Mel's behavior.
Applicable CA law is penal code 633.5. A judge will have to formally rule as to whether or not this falls under the exception of a threat of violence, but it likely would. And apparently another exception is annoying phone calls which is a much broader exception.
Mel Gibson tapes: Are the recordings admissible in court? | EW.comQuote:
Normally, California law requires two-party consent for recording phone conversations, and it seems Grigorieva may have recorded Gibson without his knowledge. But as criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos explains, even without his consent, there is still a chance the recordings could make it into evidence. “Generally there’s a presumption that they are not admissible,” says Geragos, who has represented Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder. “However, there is an exception under [penal code] 633.5, which [states that] in certain types of cases, they can be admissible. But that is a factual inquiry. A judge would have to rule on that.” The exception, he explains, only comes into play in “kidnapping, bribery, extortion, and crimes involving threats of violence.”
Essentially, that means it’s up to Grigorieva’s legal team to convince a judge that the infamous rants should be admitted. But, according to defense attorney James E. Blatt, that shouldn’t be too difficult. “[The tapes] will be admissible,” he says. “If someone is calling you to to say, ‘I’m going to bury you in a rose garden, and I have the ability to do that,’ I think that’s a reasonable inference of a criminal threat.” And Gibson’s rant might fit under another exception to the penal code: annoying phone calls. “I think it’s pretty clear that most people would consider these phone calls to be annoying,” Blatt says. “That’s an understatement.”