•Every other piece of evidence has to go through our senses and minds. Therefore every other evidence is subject to observation and the problems that all humans suffer from.
But you haven't made the case that testimony isn't subject to the same problems as other evidentiary sources (because - quite frankly - I don't think you can)
•Testimony is more inclusive. Short of video evidence where each individual can review what happened (and more than once), human observance can tell you more about what actually happened more than any other evidence. Tests may be able to tell you if the person was in the room (at some time) or that the person has fired a gun recently. I'm not saying that other evidence is insignificant, but that witness testimony can often tell you more. Witnesses can even tell you about the demeanor of the person before, during, or after the crime.
I've got serious problems with this whole section:
1. Testimony is not 'more inclusive' than other sources of evidence. Testimony is the report of what a person or persons saw or think they saw.
2. Same objection, with the addition that a reconstruction of events from the physical evidence is far, FAR more compelling and valuable than accounts given by witnesses. Don't believe me? Ask any prosecuting attorney.
3. And tests don't lie, or have biases, or make honest mistakes because they were sick or tired or inattentive or distracted. Witnesses are capable of all of these things.
4. Determining the demeanor of a person during a crime is highly subjective. You're watching me about to shoot a person - am I fearful or angry? You'd be amazed at how much these demeanors resemble each other.
•The sequence of events can be determined. This can also lead to collaborating evidence.
You have this backwards. Physical evidence is supported by eyewitness testimony, not the other way round.
•Witnesses seen what happened. So we can have direct evidence without inference. (although sometimes it can be difficult to get a witness to give you only what they seen, without interpreting what it means).
You must have heard about the test given to first year law students. It the middle of the lecture, a man runs into the classroom, shouts a dozen words, takes several items off the lectern, and runs out. The students are then asked questions like 'What did the man say? What was he wearing? What items did he take? How tall was he? and so forth. ALL students do abysmally badly on this test - it's an object lesson about the poor value of eyewitness testimony.
•Testimony can give you evidence for things that leave no other physical evidence.
And if not corroborated by physical evidence, the testimony means nothing.
•Many in intelligence and investigative professions rely heavily on witness testimony.
And they get egg on their collective face when they do so (remember all the stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq?)
•Observation is the best evidence for what is possible.
I once observed a stage magician appear to make his lovely assistant levitate. This doesn't mean that levitation is possible.
Boru
But you haven't made the case that testimony isn't subject to the same problems as other evidentiary sources (because - quite frankly - I don't think you can)
•Testimony is more inclusive. Short of video evidence where each individual can review what happened (and more than once), human observance can tell you more about what actually happened more than any other evidence. Tests may be able to tell you if the person was in the room (at some time) or that the person has fired a gun recently. I'm not saying that other evidence is insignificant, but that witness testimony can often tell you more. Witnesses can even tell you about the demeanor of the person before, during, or after the crime.
I've got serious problems with this whole section:
1. Testimony is not 'more inclusive' than other sources of evidence. Testimony is the report of what a person or persons saw or think they saw.
2. Same objection, with the addition that a reconstruction of events from the physical evidence is far, FAR more compelling and valuable than accounts given by witnesses. Don't believe me? Ask any prosecuting attorney.
3. And tests don't lie, or have biases, or make honest mistakes because they were sick or tired or inattentive or distracted. Witnesses are capable of all of these things.
4. Determining the demeanor of a person during a crime is highly subjective. You're watching me about to shoot a person - am I fearful or angry? You'd be amazed at how much these demeanors resemble each other.
•The sequence of events can be determined. This can also lead to collaborating evidence.
You have this backwards. Physical evidence is supported by eyewitness testimony, not the other way round.
•Witnesses seen what happened. So we can have direct evidence without inference. (although sometimes it can be difficult to get a witness to give you only what they seen, without interpreting what it means).
You must have heard about the test given to first year law students. It the middle of the lecture, a man runs into the classroom, shouts a dozen words, takes several items off the lectern, and runs out. The students are then asked questions like 'What did the man say? What was he wearing? What items did he take? How tall was he? and so forth. ALL students do abysmally badly on this test - it's an object lesson about the poor value of eyewitness testimony.
•Testimony can give you evidence for things that leave no other physical evidence.
And if not corroborated by physical evidence, the testimony means nothing.
•Many in intelligence and investigative professions rely heavily on witness testimony.
And they get egg on their collective face when they do so (remember all the stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq?)
•Observation is the best evidence for what is possible.
I once observed a stage magician appear to make his lovely assistant levitate. This doesn't mean that levitation is possible.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
