Testimony is Evidence

[Ravenshire]

Your intellectual dishonesty has grown to disgusting proportions. You can't show that testimony is reliable, therefore everyone is cherry picking and providing anecdotes.

You want to show testimony is reliabe? Show us cases where the primary cause for conviction is physical evidence and testimony got it overturned. I dare you.

No not everyone... a number of people are just throwing out insults and vague accusations out.  

However I did explain why it was cherry picking and the issue of anecdotal evidence in this context.   If you don't understand...just ask.   If you think my reasoning is wrong... please share why, and if you are reduced to just insults and a incredulous stare, then perhaps you may want to take some time to re-think things.

The following explains how exculpatory evidence may be direct or circumstantial evidence.  [RotLaw]

Exculpatory evidence comes in a number of different forms.  It may be testimony from a witness who states that she saw someone other than the defendant commit the crime or that the defendant was with the witness when the crime occurred.  It may be real evidence or an object from the crime scene, such as fingerprints lifted from a weapon that don’t match the defendant’s fingerprints.  It may be security video footage that shows whoever committed the crime doesn’t match the description of the defendant.  Exculpatory evidence may be real or documentary, direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, testimony or a physical exhibit presented in court.  If it tends to show the defendant might not be guilty of the crime, it is “exculpatory.”

Do you not think that a new witness coming forward could overturn previous evidence in a case?
Further I don't believe that it is right thinking to say that because a certain type of evidence was overturned by another type of evidence that the former is not evidence.  Do you come to the same conclusions when one type of physical evidence overturns cases involving another type of physical evidence.  DNA evidence is relatively new, and in the news a lot (especially for this type of thing).  However we are also finding out that it too is fallible.

How about the following scenario (this also demonstrates an earlier point to Benny)

A man is found by the police standing overtop of a victim The victom has a knife stuck in his chest, and it is found that then man's found standing over him has his DNA on the murder weapon, as well, as the victims blood all over him.  The man swears that he did not kill the person.

Do you convict the man?

What if I add a little more  information to facts of the case:

---

The man standing over him was an off duty paramedic.  And an independent witness reports him trying to save the victim.

Now what if this witness doesn't come forward until after the man is convicted and in prison.   Would you release him, based on this testimony?

---

I am not going to chase the red herring, so sorry. I will have to play your semantics game, albeit briefly, though I won't again. We both know what these terms mean and you're stretching one past the breaking point and mis-applying the other. The evidence I've shown is not anecdotal because they are not evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. These are actual cases and can be researched.

I haven't been cherry picking since I've not been finding cases in favor of my argument and ignoring cases against. Hell, I've not been able to find cases where additional testimony has overturned a conviction for so much as a parking ticket. Physical evidence has. If you could perhaps show us some cases instead of tossing yet another red herring?

I have repeatedly stated that testimony is weak as a form of evidence, but is certainly useful to corroborate physical evidence. You're claim, at least as far as you've made clear, is that testimony is evidence just as good as physical evidence. I've presented my case and you've presented logical arguments and red herrings. All the information I've been able to find supports the idea that physical evidence trumps testimony every time they clash. Have you got some evidence to the contrary? Now would be the time to present it.