Within UFO Research Deaths
How Much Weight Should Pre Death Warnings Carry?
A warning that someone fears for their safety can be significant evidence of apprehension without identifying a threat, attacker or motive.
On this page
- What a warning establishes directly
- The Eskridge reports as a test case
- What corroboration would strengthen the claim
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
A pre-death warning such as “I am in danger” or “if I am found dead, do not assume it was suicide” is important evidence, but its evidential reach is narrower than its emotional force. At minimum, a reasonably authenticated warning can establish that the speaker expressed apprehension before death. Depending on its timing and circumstances, it may also justify checking whether the eventual death matches risks the person had previously described. It does not, by itself, prove that the feared threat was real, identify an attacker, establish a motive, or show that a later death was homicide.
That distinction is central to claims surrounding UFO and antigravity researchers. Amy Eskridge is the clearest test case because messages and earlier recorded remarks attributed to her describe fears of harm before her death in Huntsville in June 2022. Those warnings deserve investigation rather than dismissal. But converting them into proof that an aerospace company, intelligence service or other actor killed her requires independent evidence that has not been publicly demonstrated.
What a warning establishes directly
The strongest proposition supported by a genuine contemporaneous warning is usually straightforward: the person was saying that they feared something.
This distinction has a close analogue in evidence law. Alabama Rule of Evidence 803(3), like the corresponding federal rule, recognises statements reflecting a person’s then-existing mental or emotional condition, including feelings, intent and plan. Crucially, the rule excludes using a person’s statement of memory or belief simply to prove that the event they believed in actually happened.[Alabama Judicial System]judicial.alabama.govJudicial System Alabama Rules of EvidenceAlabama Judicial SystemAlabama Rules of EvidenceApril 19, 2026…
In practical terms, there is a major difference between these two propositions:
- “Amy said she feared for her safety.”
- “Therefore the people she feared were genuinely attacking her.”
The first can be supported by an authenticated message or recording. The second requires additional evidence.
The US Supreme Court illustrated the problem long before the UFO controversy existed. In Shepard v United States, a murder case involving a deceased woman’s accusation against her husband, the Court warned against turning a statement that might illuminate the deceased person’s state of mind into proof that another person actually committed the alleged act. The decision sharply distinguished evidence of someone’s feelings or future intentions from allegations describing what somebody else supposedly did.[Justia Law]supreme.justia.comJustia LawShepard v. United States | 290 U.S. 96 (1933) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court CenterNovember 6, 1933…
That is a useful discipline for evaluating pre-death warnings in controversial research cases. A warning can be highly relevant without functioning as a posthumous identification of a killer.
Nor should the phrase “dying declaration” be used loosely. In legal usage it has specialised requirements; Shepard, for example, emphasised that a declarant must genuinely believe death is imminent for the traditional doctrine to apply. A message sent weeks or months before an unexpected death is therefore not automatically transformed into exceptionally powerful evidence merely because its author subsequently dies.[Justia Law]supreme.justia.comJustia LawShepard v. United States | 290 U.S. 96 (1933) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court CenterNovember 6, 1933…
The Eskridge reports as a test case
Amy Catherine Eskridge provides an unusually useful example because several different kinds of claim have become compressed into a single narrative: that she researched antigravity, that she feared being harmed, that she specifically rejected a future suicide explanation, and that those warnings prove she was murdered because of her research. The first propositions are much better documented than the last.
Eskridge’s association with unconventional propulsion was real rather than retroactively invented after her death. The Huntsville Alabama L5 Society, or HAL5, records her December 2018 presentation, “A Historical Perspective on Anti-Gravity Technology”, identifying her as president and co-founder of the Institute for Exotic Science. HAL5 still hosts her presentation materials and described her background at the time as including chemistry, materials science and interdisciplinary technical work.[HAL5]hal5.orgprogram 2018 12.shtmlHAL5 December 2018 ProgramDecember 6, 2018… Her 2022 obituary likewise identified her as chairwoman and president of the Institute and recorded her death on 11 June 2022 at the age of 34.[Legacy.com]legacy.comamy eskridge obituary1987 - 2022) - Huntsville, AL - AL.com (Huntsville)June 21, 2022
The disputed part concerns what happened before that death. Reporting that resurfaced prominently in 2026 describes messages attributed to Eskridge and released by Franc Milburn, a retired British military figure who says he corresponded with her. One message dated 13 May 2022 reportedly stated that, if reports later said she had killed herself or overdosed, those reports should not be believed. Milburn has also said she described harassment, intimidation and physical effects that she attributed to directed-energy attacks, and that she told contacts to regard any apparent suicide or accident as suspicious.[International Business Times UK]ibtimes.co.ukth | IBTimes UKApril 23, 2026…
Those statements matter. If the underlying messages are authentic and correctly dated, they move the claim beyond the much weaker category of “friends later remembered that she seemed worried”. They would demonstrate that, before her death, Eskridge had deliberately put her concern in writing and contemplated the possibility that a future death might be represented as self-inflicted.
They still do not resolve why she said it.
A person can sincerely fear an actual adversary. A person can also misidentify the cause of genuinely disturbing experiences, misunderstand ambiguous events, exaggerate a risk, repeat information supplied by someone else, or form a mistaken belief. None of those alternatives can responsibly be selected merely from the existence of the warning itself. The same evidence that demonstrates apprehension does not automatically validate the explanation the speaker gave for that apprehension.
Congressional inclusion is not independent confirmation
One reason the Eskridge claim now looks more authoritative online is that an allegation concerning her appears in written testimony submitted to a US House Oversight hearing. Michael Shellenberger’s accompanying UAP timeline states that Milburn claimed Eskridge was targeted with directed-energy weapons and murdered by a private aerospace company because of her UAP involvement and advanced-propulsion work.[Oversight Committee]oversight.house.govOversight Committee
That is significant for tracing the allegation’s history: it shows that the claim reached material formally supplied to Congress. It does not mean Congress verified or adopted Milburn’s allegation. The document itself attributes the assertion to Milburn rather than presenting a police finding, autopsy conclusion, forensic result or congressional determination.[Oversight Committee]oversight.house.govOversight Committee
There is also a small but revealing factual problem in the timeline. Its Eskridge entry gives 15 June 2022 as the date of her death, whereas her contemporary obituary says Saturday, 11 June 2022, the date repeated in later reporting.[house.gov]oversight.house.govOversight CommitteeOversight Committee The discrepancy does not disprove the underlying threat allegation, but it demonstrates why inclusion in an impressive-looking governmental document should not be mistaken for independent fact-checking of every item within it.
This is particularly important in UFO research, where citation chains can become circular. A researcher makes an allegation; a journalist or witness incorporates it into a timeline; the timeline enters a congressional hearing record; later accounts then describe the allegation as having been “submitted to Congress” and treat that institutional setting as additional confirmation. Unless Congress, investigators or another independent source actually verify the underlying claim, the evidential chain still leads back to the original source.
Why “she said she would never do it” is not decisive
The most striking Eskridge message is the reported warning rejecting a future suicide explanation. It is understandably treated as powerful because the subsequent death has been widely reported as a suicide by self-inflicted gunshot.[Hindustan Times]hindustantimes.comOpen source on hindustantimes.com. But its correct evidential interpretation requires separating several different questions.
First, an authenticated message would support the proposition that Eskridge did not present herself to that recipient at that time as intending suicide. That can be relevant, particularly if it was close in time to the death.
Second, the statement can create a legitimate investigative question when the eventual manner of death is exactly the scenario the deceased had explicitly told others to distrust. Investigators would reasonably want to establish what prompted the warning, whether anyone actually threatened her, and whether the physical evidence at the death scene independently supports the official conclusion.
But third, the statement cannot make later suicide logically impossible. Human intentions and mental states can change. Statements to friends do not necessarily disclose everything a person is experiencing. Conversely, a suicide ruling cannot retroactively prove that an earlier fear was imaginary. The warning and the later forensic evidence have to be evaluated independently and then together.
That is why the missing public detail in the Eskridge case matters. Recent reporting repeatedly describes her death as officially ruled a self-inflicted gunshot, yet the publicly accessible reporting does not reproduce a full police investigation, autopsy or detailed forensic reconstruction.[Hindustan Times]hindustantimes.comOpen source on hindustantimes.com. This information gap should be described accurately: it limits outsiders’ ability to evaluate competing claims. It is not affirmative evidence that the official ruling was fraudulent.
The same principle cuts in both directions. “Authorities ruled it suicide” should not be expanded into claims about scene evidence that the public has not seen. “She warned she would be killed” should not be expanded into “therefore she was assassinated”. The responsible conclusion sits between those overstatements.
What corroboration would strengthen the claim
A pre-death warning becomes substantially more probative when evidence independent of the speaker confirms its particulars. The most valuable corroboration in the Eskridge case would not be additional repetitions of her fears but material capable of testing them.
Authentication of the communications. Original message exports, device records, timestamps and complete conversation histories would be stronger than cropped screenshots or quotations circulated years later. They could establish authorship, chronology and whether surrounding messages change the apparent meaning.
Specific threats from identifiable sources. A vague statement that someone feels endangered has limited ability to identify a culprit. Emails, telephone records, recorded threats, named persons, threatening visits or independently witnessed intimidation would materially change the evidential picture.
Contemporaneous third-party reports. Statements to several people made independently and before the death would show that the concern was not reconstructed retrospectively by a single witness. Reports to police, lawyers, doctors, employers or security personnel would be particularly useful because they might contain dated records and concrete descriptions.
Physical corroboration of alleged attacks. Eskridge reportedly attributed burns and other symptoms to directed energy. Photographs can document an injury but normally cannot establish its cause. Medical records, contemporaneous examinations, environmental measurements or technically identifiable damage would be needed to move from “an injury existed” towards “this particular mechanism caused it”. Reports that she shared images of reddened or burned-looking hands therefore support the existence of her complaint more readily than they support her explanation for the complaint.[International Business Times UK]ibtimes.co.ukth | IBTimes UKApril 23, 2026…
The complete death investigation. Scene photographs, weapon examination, fingerprints or DNA where relevant, gunshot-residue analysis, wound trajectory, toxicology, autopsy findings, electronic-device history and witness timelines could test whether the physical circumstances are consistent with suicide or point elsewhere. Without such material in the public record, confident amateur claims about shot angles, hand dominance or staged evidence should be treated cautiously.
A demonstrated research-related motive. Even proving homicide would not establish that antigravity or UFO research caused it. That would require another evidential bridge: evidence that an identifiable actor considered Eskridge’s work valuable or threatening, sought to obtain or suppress it, and had some connection with the events surrounding her death. HAL5 documentation establishes that she publicly discussed antigravity concepts; it does not establish that she possessed a secret technical breakthrough worth killing for.[HAL5]hal5.orgprogram 2018 12.shtmlHAL5 December 2018 ProgramDecember 6, 2018…
This last distinction is often lost in discussions of alleged scientist deaths. “Researcher died suspiciously” and “researcher was killed because of the research” are separate propositions. Evidence supporting the first cannot simply be reused to prove the second.
How much weight should the warnings carry?
The most defensible assessment is that the reported Eskridge warnings are investigatively significant but causally incomplete.
They deserve more weight than a rumour invented after her death because they are attributed to communications made beforehand. If authenticated, they would be direct evidence that she anticipated or feared the possibility of serious harm and wanted an apparent suicide or accident scrutinised. Combined with the unusual match between her reported warning and the subsequently reported manner of death, that is enough to make the provenance of the messages, the events she described and the underlying investigative record reasonable subjects for examination.[International Business Times UK]ibtimes.co.ukth | IBTimes UKApril 23, 2026…
But the warnings do not presently establish the larger claim frequently built around them. The public evidence cited here does not independently demonstrate that a private aerospace company threatened Eskridge, that a directed-energy weapon was used against her, that somebody staged her death, or that antigravity research supplied a murder motive. Even the congressional testimony that mentions the allegation explicitly identifies it as Milburn’s claim.[Oversight Committee]oversight.house.govOversight Committee
The cleanest way to retain both scepticism and evidential seriousness is therefore to ask what each layer actually proves. Eskridge’s documented public interest in unconventional propulsion establishes context. Her reported messages, if authentic, establish expressed fear. Corroborated threats could establish an external danger. Forensic contradictions could challenge the suicide ruling. Evidence connecting a particular actor to both the threat and the death could support homicide. Evidence linking that actor’s conduct specifically to her research would be needed before describing the death as suppression of antigravity or UAP work.
Until those later links are demonstrated, a pre-death warning is best understood not as a solution to the case, but as a lead that makes independent corroboration more important.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to How Much Weight Should Pre Death Warnings Carry?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
Thinking, Fast and Slow
Why is there more chance we'll believe something if it's in a bold type face? Why are judges more likely to deny parole before lunch? Why...
The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING offers a comprehensive introduction to the field with a strong focus on the social aspects...
The Demon-haunted World
Rating: 4.5/5 from 43 Google Books ratings
Are we on the brink of a new Dark Age of irrationality and superstition? In this book, the writer shows how scientific thinking is necess...
Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me)
Two distinguished psychologists look at the role of self-justification in human life, explaining how and why we create fictions that abso...
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Selected fromUFO poster oneBay.co.uk.
Endnotes
1.
Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Title: Judicial System Alabama Rules of Evidence
Link:https://judicial.alabama.gov/docs/library/rules/ev803.pdf
Source snippet
Alabama Judicial SystemAlabama Rules of EvidenceApril 19, 2026...
Published: April 19, 2026
2.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/290/96/
Source snippet
Justia LawShepard v. United States | 290 U.S. 96 (1933) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court CenterNovember 6, 1933...
Published: November 6, 1933
3.
Source: hal5.org
Title: program 2018 12.shtml
Link:https://www.hal5.org/program-2018-12.shtml
Source snippet
HAL5 December 2018 ProgramDecember 6, 2018...
Published: December 6, 2018
4.
Source: hal5.org
Title: Selected Charts and Recording of Monthly Talk
Link:https://www.hal5.org/charts-videos.shtml
Source snippet
Selected Charts and Recording of Monthly Talk...
5.
Source: hal5.org
Title: A HISTORICAL
Link:https://www.hal5.org/PDF/HAL5-Dec2018-Talk-AntiGravity.pdf
Source snippet
A HISTORICAL...
6.
Source: legacy.com
Title: amy eskridge obituary
Link:https://www.legacy.com/us/[obituaries
Source snippet
(1987 - 2022) - Huntsville, AL - AL.com (Huntsville)June 21, 2022...
Published: June 21, 2022
7.
Source: ibtimes.co.uk
Link:https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uncovered-video-ufo-scientist-amy-eskridge-investigation-1793250
Source snippet
th | IBTimes UKApril 23, 2026...
Published: April 23, 2026
8.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Title: Oversight Committee
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Written-Testimony-Shellenberger.pdf
9.
Source: uscode.house.gov
Link:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=%2Fprelim%40title28%2Ftitle28a%2Fnode232
10.
Source: hal5.org
Title: HA L5’s Events and Activities History
Link:https://www.hal5.org/events-history.shtml
11.
Source: congress.gov
Link:https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45153
12.
Source: legacy.com
Title: amy eskridge memorial
Link:https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/legacyremembers/amy-eskridge-memorial?id=35311909
13.
Source: congress.gov
Title: S. Rept. 117-7
Link:https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/117th-congress/senate-report/7
14.
Source: congress.gov
Title: ional Record | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Link:https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-166/issue-193/senate-section/article/S6679-5
15.
Source: congress.gov
Title: all info
Link:https://www.congress.gov/nomination/116th-congress/2306/all-info
16.
Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/court-of-appeals-criminal/2020/cr-19-0157.html
17.
Source: college.police.uk
Title: Suspect strategy | College of Policing
Link:https://www.college.police.uk/app/domestic-abuse/suspect-strategy
18.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/353/
19.
Source: congress.gov
Title: ional Record | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Link:https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-154/issue-41/senate-section/article/S1909-2
20.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/544/13/
21.
Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/supreme-court/2004/1000999-4.html
22.
Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/court-of-appeals-criminal/2003/cr-99-2249-0-0.html
23.
Source: congress.gov
Title: ional Record | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Link:https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-143/issue-114/senate-section/article/S8746-2
24.
Source: congress.gov
Title: P N595
Link:https://www.congress.gov/nomination/105th-congress/595/all-info
25.
Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/court-of-appeals-civil/1996/2950837-0.html
26.
Source: congress.gov
Title: P N752
Link:https://www.congress.gov/nomination/100th-congress/752/all-info
27.
Source: congress.gov
Title: 99th congress
Link:https://www.congress.gov/nomination/99th-congress/1192
28.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/52/
29.
Source: congress.gov
Title: P N115
Link:https://www.congress.gov/nomination/98th-congress/115/all-info
30.
Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Link:https://judicial.alabama.gov/rules/
31.
Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Link:https://judicial.alabama.gov/rules/index
32.
Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Link:https://judicial.alabama.gov/library/rulesev
33.
Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Link:https://judicial.alabama.gov/library/ALTreatises
34.
Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Link:https://judicial.alabama.gov/library/juryinstructions
35.
Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Link:https://judicial.alabama.gov/library/criminalprocedure
36.
Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Title: Rules Bar Conduct
Link:https://judicial.alabama.gov/library/RulesBarConduct
37.
Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Link:https://judicial.alabama.gov/library/rulesofcourt
38.
Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Title: Expedited Civil Action
Link:https://judicial.alabama.gov/library/ExpeditedCivilAction
39.
Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Link:https://judicial.alabama.gov/appellate/JIC
40.
Source: judicial.alabama.gov
Link:https://judicial.alabama.gov/library/civilprocedureappendix
41.
Source: legacy.com
Link:https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/eskridge/amy
42.
Source: uap.gg
Link:https://uap.gg/
43.
Source: uscode.house.gov
Link:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28a-node232-article8-rule803
44.
Source: uscode.house.gov
Link:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title28a-node230-article8-rule803
45.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/38/209/
46.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/75/397/
47.
Source: police.uk
Link:https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/victim-support/giving-witness-victim-statement/
48.
Source: congress.gov
Link:https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/congressional-record-index/116th-congress/1st-session/mcconnell-mitch-a-senator-from-kentucky/553096
49.
Source: congress.gov
Link:https://www.congress.gov/congressional-globe/index-to-debates/24th-congress/1st-session/house
50.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/333/
51.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/341/50/
52.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/264/
53.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/180/552/
54.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/168/532/
55.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/142/691/
56.
Source: hindustantimes.com
Link:https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/amy-eskridge-update-ufo-scientists-old-texts-cast-doubt-on-cause-of-death-would-never-kill-myself-101776897906208.html
57.
Source: ibtimes.co.uk
Title: pentagon uap files amy eskridge ultraterrestrial claims 1796556
Link:https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pentagon-uap-files-amy-eskridge-ultraterrestrial-claims-1796556
58.
Source: ibtimes.co.uk
Title: mystery death amy eskridge 1795573
Link:https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mystery-death-amy-eskridge-1795573
59.
Source: ibtimes.co.uk
Title: amy eskridge death investigation 1794631
Link:https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/amy-eskridge-death-investigation-1794631
60.
Source: ibtimes.co.uk
Title: uncovered videos texts amy eskridge death 1793433
Link:https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uncovered-videos-texts-amy-eskridge-death-1793433
61.
Source: hindustantimes.com
Link:https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/james-moffatt-plane-crash-death-huntsville-link-brings-back-[amy-eskridge-case
62.
Source: ibtimes.co.uk
Title: resurfaced video amy eskridge death questions 1793252
Link:https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/resurfaced-video-amy-eskridge-death-questions-1793252
63.
Source: hindustantimes.com
Link:https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/amy-eskridge-update-ufo-scientists-old-texts-cast-doubt-on-cause-of-death-would-never-kill-myself-101776897906208-amp.html
64.
Source: ibtimes.co.uk
Title: mysterious death anti gravity scientist ufo conspiracy 1792209
Link:https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mysterious-death-anti-gravity-scientist-ufo-conspiracy-1792209
65.
Source: disclosuremonitor.com
Title: Amy Eskridge | Disclosure Monitor
Link:https://disclosuremonitor.com/people/amy-eskridge-antigravity-researcher
66.
Source: cps.gov.uk
Link:https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or
67.
Source: GOV.UK
Title: www.gov.uk Evidence in criminal investigations (accessible)
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-in-criminal-investigations/evidence-in-criminal-investigations-accessible
68.
Source: GOV.UK
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sudden-unexpected-death-medical-investigation/practice-advice-the-medical-investigation-of-suspected-homicide-accessible–2
69.
Source: cps.gov.uk
Title: Witness protection and anonymity | The Crown Prosecution Service
Link:https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/witness-protection-and-anonymity
70.
Source: ufouap.com
Title: amy eskridge
Link:https://www.ufouap.com/case-files/amy-eskridge/
71.
Source: ufouap.com
Title: amy eskridge
Link:https://www.ufouap.com/es/case-files/amy-eskridge/
72.
Source: cps.gov.uk
Title: Hearsay | The Crown Prosecution Service
Link:https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/hearsay
73.
Source: cps.gov.uk
Title: Mental Health: Suspects and Defendants | The Crown Prosecution Service
Link:https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/mental-health-suspects-and-defendants
74.
Source: GOV.UK
Title: www.gov.uk Sudden unexpected death: medical investigation
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sudden-unexpected-death-medical-investigation
Additional References
75.
Source: law.cornell.edu
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803
Source snippet
Legal Information InstituteRule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay | Federal Rules of Evidence | US Law | LII / Legal Informatio...
76.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCG2iISpyLs
Source snippet
David Wilcock's FINAL 72 Hours Deepen Death Mystery As Friend Reveals Last Call With UFO Researcher...
77.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSs-GI75nF8
Source snippet
Father of 11th dead or [missing scientist]({{ 'missing-scientist/' | relative_url }}) rejects suspicions about her death...
78.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Father of 11th dead or missing scientist rejects suspicions about her death
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d–WxTUkXE
Source snippet
11 missing or dead scientists each have ties to sensitive nuclear and aerospace research...
79.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hp02QoYzN4
Source snippet
What Happened to Amy Eskridge? | Anti-Gravity, Exotic Science, and Conspiracy Theories...
80.
Source: ncleg.gov
Link:https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_8C/GS_8C-1%2C_Rule_803.html
81.
Source: rules.incourts.gov
Link:https://rules.incourts.gov/Content/evidence/rule803/current.htm
82.
Source: shinysideout.com.au
Link:https://www.shinysideout.com.au/00-amy-eskridge.html
83.
Source: shinysideout.com.au
Link:https://www.shinysideout.com.au/13-ning-li.html
84.
Source: tribune.com.pk
Link:https://tribune.com.pk/story/2604381/amy-eskridge-death-resurfaces-in-online-debate-amid-renewed-ufo-community-speculation?amp=1