The judicial consensus appears to be that the court may infer the happening of the startling event from the statement itself.” McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 265.01(1) at 1282 (footnote omitted). See Advisory Committee’s Notes to Rule 803(2), Fed.R.Evid. (“Whether proof of the startling event may be made by the statement itself is largely an academic question, since in most cases there is present at least circumstantial evidence that something of a startling nature must have occurred_ Nevertheless, on occasion the only evidence may be the content of the statement itself, and rulings that it may be sufficient are described as ‘increasing’ ... and as the ‘prevailing practice.’”) (citations omitted); and Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) (<HOLDING>). “The question of whether the statement is
holding that a defendant waives right to object to a hearsay statement on confrontation grounds when he or she offers the statement holding that defendant who introduced hearsay statement waived objection to admission of another part of same statement holding that a hearsay statement can itself be considered in first determining if a conspiracy existed when the statement was made holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent holding that plaintiffs testimony in employment discrimination case about statement made to her by manager was inadmissible hearsay because it included statement made by others who were unidentified