Use in it terminology....it's more like pls respond

darthboyzee kam defend

All these communications don't even involve Najib.

Legally this is hearsay. Unless C admitted or proven that the person alluded in the conversation between A and B is actually C then then only thing that can be accepted is that there is a conversation between A and B but the validity of the conversation regarding C will not be accepted in court.

What hearsay?

This is meesage recover from blackberry
Verbal conversation is hearsay if none take part in the conversation velidate it
But this is electonic trail and cold hard evidence lel

I talking about the specific conversation as posted which is between person A and person B. You know what hearsay means or not?

A and B talking about C. Whats so hard to understand? Did C in this conversation where it shows the instruction is from C?

You cant use only this. To be admissable there must also be a conversation between A and C or B and C.

If just based on this, C is only a third party where this conversation is supoosed to be about C with the possibility of C did not even know head or tail about this conversation at all and C's name possibly been use as if the actual instructuon comes from C to give the sense or urgency.

Unnerstand??

Ok la. You win. No point talking to a wall.

What no head no tail suddenly my name kena panggil
I dont even remember having any previous debate or discussion with you lol

Wah really ahhh never know

What made me famous i will never know also