Witness Evidence

[bennyboy]

What happened to the reliability of eyewitness testimony?  Don't tell me that you also, after all of this bullshit, defer to evidence over testimony....that would be silly.

I think it is reasonable, that given contrary evidence; that the stronger of the two should be followed. Don't you?   In the case that you gave, the witness testimony wasn't that strong.  In other instances, the forensic evidence may not be that strong.  I'm not making a black and white rule, that you must always follow, regardless of the details. I think I am consistent here, and my position has been all along, that physical evidence does not necessarily rule out testimonial evidence or that only physical evident is permissible (which is what I'm opposing). When dealing with contrary evidence, then there necessarily has to be a mistake or fabrication somewhere.

This bullshit thinking is how the Inquisition and Salem started: people's words being taken on authority by those with a vested interest in it.  It's how magic healing crystals get sold, how old ladies get robbed of their pensions, and how the people who need assistance the most are consistently Republican.  It's how black guys get lynched on the word of two or three "respected" citizens.

You are trying to set up a slippery slope, where if no real evidence exists, we should consider wishy-thinking, hunches, and dockyard tall tales the "best available" evidence.  It's not, any more than a gallon of diesel is the "best available" fuel for a car that uses normal gas.  It's not the best evidence, nor good evidence, nor acceptable evidence.  It is "evidence" that no right-thinking person would take seriously, because using hearsay to establish truth is an epic fail.

With this thinking, you would almost for sure flunk out of an Introductory course to the legal system.