RED ALERT Lost 3 ft TOS Enterprise found????

[edge10]

That happens to be an exception to the hearsay rule. If the maker of the out of court statement is dead (or otherwise unavailable), the statement is admissible. But SS's knowledge isn't necessarily confined to something GR said. She could testify from personal, direct knowledge that he never sold it.

It sure doesn't sound like it would apply, as it doesn't meet any of the exceptions:

Hearsay Evidence - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Hearsay defined and explained with examples. Testimony based on what a witness has heard from another person, of which he has no personal knowledge.

legaldictionary.net

Edit: My apologies. I'm allowing myself to get upset, about things that don't involve me at all.

 

[asalaw]

It sure doesn't sound like it would apply, as it doesn't meet any of the exceptions:

Hearsay Evidence - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Hearsay defined and explained with examples. Testimony based on what a witness has heard from another person, of which he has no personal knowledge.

legaldictionary.net

"Of which he has no personal knowledge." The whole point is that SS knew GR intimately, and, as I said above, could very well testify from her personal knowledge. And in any case, Federal Rule of Evidence 804 (a)(4) on hearsay exceptions includes death as a cause of unavailability. Many (if not most) states follow the federal rules in their own rules.

 

[asalaw]

"Of which he has no personal knowledge." The whole point is that SS knew GR intimately, and, as I said above, could very well testify from her personal knowledge. And in any case, Federal Rule of Evidence 804 (a)(4) on hearsay exceptions includes death as a cause of unavailability. Many (if not most) states follow the federal rules in their own rules.

I forgot we're probably dealing with California law, and California's different in terms of its evidence code. The relevant section is Evidence Code section 240(a)(3), which includes death in the definition of an unavailable declarant (the person who makes the out of court statement). It amounts to the same thing though--GR assumed room temperature, SS knew him intimately for many years, and she could either testify from direct knowledge or about things he said about the missing model. At least, IMO. I'm not licensed in California and I'm not a litigator, so YMMV.

 

[joberg]

Let's say it was "borrowed" from G.R. by J. Jennings with the approval of G.R.
Let's say that J. Jennings new that he wasn't returning that original model to G.R.
Let's say that J. Jennings paid for 2 lockers and put that Enterprise in one of them as to go to said locker and admire the model, from time to time, and not telling a soul...but only to his family on his death bed.
Let's say that the Jennings family was aware, then, of the entire content of the two lockers and sold the wrong one, by mistake, containing the model.
Let's say that the Jennings family was waiting to get "proper ownership" of the model, once the main proprietor/friends/witnesses were no longer of this world to corroborate the "the model was stolen" main story.
Let's say that, after the passing of said proprietor/friends/witnesses, the right locker would've been sold with the model being "discovered".
Let's say that the Jennings family could claim proper ownership of the model, telling the story that G.R. gave it to their dad at the time.

 

[Moviefreak]

I am no lawyer, but I’d hope the judge would say, produce a bill of sale or canceled check signed by GR showing that he was paid the $5,000, or ownership reverts back to Gene’s family.

 

[asalaw]

I am no lawyer l, but I’d hope the judge would say, produce a bill of sale or canceled check signed by GR showing that he was paid the $5,000, or ownership reverts back to Gene’s family.

That's a good point.

 

[Ant1988]

Hopefully this is resolved soon...

 

[JiminSTLouis]

4844.....should make 5000 next week.

I think you meant to post this in another thread.

 

[Ant1988]

I think you meant to post this in another thread.

Oops. Yeah...

 

[Treadwell]

Not sure why I'm really sharing this, but:

No new info, and several inaccuracies. By a reporter claiming to be a fan. This could've been made 10 months ago, that's how deep he dug into the story...

 

[Gregatron]

Not sure why I'm really sharing this, but:

No new info, and several inaccuracies. By a reporter claiming to be a fan. This could've been made 10 months ago, that's how deep he dug into the story...

Sometimes we need negative examples to appreciate the positive ones.

 

[flimzy]

Nice end to the story now can we get rid of the terrible CG that was added to the show.
Or will that start another debate.

 

[Trek World]

Hi guys,

Great group, by the way. You’ve been very helpful in my research as I go through this.

I just wanted to let you know I have video coming out in about two weeks that will finally answer everyone’s question about where it had been and how did it get to the storage unit and when.

In that video, I’ll lay out the trail from day one. Who got it from Gene (Jennings, as previously disclosed). But more importantly, I’ll explain exactly why the model went into storage in 1985. As well as whose name was on the storage unit. And then I can show you how I can trace back that owner to how and why they got the model from Jennings in the first place. I’ve got photo evidence to this as well. Which was the “missing link” I was searching for.

In the long run, it really doesn’t matter if Jennings paid for the model or not. The exact same chain of events shows how everyone really was still unsure of where the model was. *Including* the Jennings family.

Anyhow; thanks again for your inspiring curiosity. As fellow fans, you’ve kept an open mind throughout a very turbulent series of events.

So get your popcorn ready…. It’s been a wild ride.

 

[alensatemybuick]

Look forward to seeing that video, Trek World.

By the way, there’s a fellow who is a known seller of cool Trek items who is auctioning some 35 mm slides on EBay showing the 1/4 scale model. What’s interesting to me is the saggy nacelles, that really look like how the model appears today. Seller claims these were from a film dating from pre-production of “The Motion Picture” (1978) and that tends to jibe with the known history and as I said the angle of the nacelles indicate that it was like that even as far as back then.

Search terms “behind the scene enterprise” will bring them up.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Interesting, no droop when Gene had it, at least in those few photos, then droop when studio got hold of it again.

 

[alensatemybuick]

It’s hard to say for sure; there are candid photos from ‘74 that suggest some possible droop, but they’re taken at angles such that it’s not definitive. Some of the 35m slides on EBay right now are droop definitive.

 

[Trek World]

Look forward to seeing that video, Trek World.

By the way, there’s a fellow who is a known seller of cool Trek items who is auctioning some 35 mm slides on EBay showing the 1/4 scale model. What’s interesting to me is the saggy nacelles, that really look like how the model appears today. Seller claims these were from a film dating from pre-production of “The Motion Picture” (1978) and that tends to jibe with the known history and as I said the angle of the nacelles indicate that it was like that even as far as back then.

Search terms “behind the scene enterprise” will bring them up.

View attachment 1866859

Thanks for the head's up!

I will be sure to go out and grab these pics. And maybe a slide or two.

 

[phase pistol]

The secret is out! Some lost frames of the 3 footer shot in 1978 (!) were recovered from an EBay seller, and I stitched them together to make a short (20 second) video

The model shows the bits of reflective tape that can be seen on it today!

Glen Swanson tells the incredible story:

Facebook link

 

[phase pistol]

it was a hard thirteen years

 

[alensatemybuick]

maybe less (or is that more?)