All four of the other guys immediate thoughts "Huh, HE has an assassin? I thought I was the only one. Hm. I oughta deal with him before he uses it on me."

Six scenes later, all four of their assassins stabbing him at the same time. "Oh, hey Jim." "Hey Clari" "Huh, Bob's here to." "Yeah, been a minute hasn't it. Shame Illuani's going to have to look for a new job." "Isn't it just? He was kinda cool to chat with." "Ah well. See ya guys later." "Aww, come on, we're not doing drinks?" "Lady, I KNOW you're a specialized poisoner. C'mon. These chats are fun but..."

I believe this is the executive version of the prisoner's dilemma.

Tall Pablo.

I still think that's Guy's body there so it should be him with a Pablo's disguise.

Pablo really makes that silver hair look work. Very suave Pablo, very suave.

I'm pretty sure "hearsay" ceases to be excludible as hearsay if you were a party to the conversation in question.

So in this case, when Illuani told Pablo that the Heroland executives had hired him to kill him, that would be hearsay evidence, since Pablo heard about it second-hand. But now that Dolk has admitted it to him directly, it ceases to be hearsay. At least, that's my understanding of the hearsay rule.

I think it would only be hearsay if someone *else* was the one saying it. Dolk admitting it directly is just a confession.

I bet on bald exec. he seems to have had several seizures and noone cared. screw them, i say!
his wart even changed sides...

Cue in Guy eavesdropping.

@Franz
Honestly? Wouldn't surprise me. Pretending to be Evyle would get him plenty of answers, sure, but then pretending to be Pablo would get him even more AND a measure of safety behind the associated diplomatic immunity... That said, I wouldn't exactly be disappointed if it turned out to be Pablo.

@TarvanAlvein
Maybe their legal system uses different definitions? Or Pablo's just fishing for more evidence/fractures so as to prevent a repeat of last time the executives were in the hot seat.

Yeah, the executive's wrong; it'd be absurd if hearsay-exclusions worked that way.

Of course, the executives could argue that Pablo's lying, or that Pablo was brain-washed, or that Pablo was tricked by some highly skilled actors who merely pretended to be the executives, or that they were making false-statements under duress, or something like that -- and then a judge/jury could consider those claims when making their decision.

But, it'd seem silly for a court to outright bar Pablo from even testifying to what he believed that he heard.

Actually, just to clarify:

> But, it'd seem silly for a court to outright bar Pablo from even testifying to what he believed that he heard.

I mean, in that case. It could be different in other cases.

Like, if Pablo heard Burk say that the executives did something, then the court might exclude that as hearsay -- with the theory being that, if Burk wants to make such an accusation, then Burk should come to court and testify to it under oath, and that the defendants should have the right to face their accuser (Burk) and cross-examine. But, since courts don't generally expect defendants to testify against themselves, that doesn't generally apply to "statements against interest".

Another possible exception might be if Pablo's suit has a built-in audio-recorder that's always running. Then, a court might expect Pablo to enter recordings as evidence, refusing to enter non-recorded hearsay from Pablo (unless Pablo has a good explanation for why he can't submit the recordings).

I think hearsay here isn't used in a legal sense, but in a general sense that while Pablo's testimony is pretty good, it isn't enough to prove beyond reasonable doubts that guy as being guilty. If Pablo doesn't have the help from another executive, who would reinforce his testimony and help cut through the garbage, the accusation won't be accompanied by heavy sanctions.