(August 2, 2017 at 12:55 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So I did post this in another thread, but I thought that many might have tuned out in that, and I'm interested in getting a view of peoples opinions. Besides I never did a poll before, and thought in might be fun, as well as provide an option for those who don't want to comment.  I apologize in advance for those who like many options to a poll, but this is an excluded middle type of question (either A or Not A).


So a hypothetical question. A few of us, along with some strangers are sitting in a room (say 11 people in total) I'm trying to have a discussion with spmeone, and he just keeps calling me names, refuses to engage in anything, and just repeats back any accusation I make without even paying attention to the context. (you know the child's game of I know you are but what am I). I lose it, and hit him over the head with a chair, seriously injuring him (blind sided him of course). No one lets me leave, until the cops get there. Everyone gives slightly different accounts. Some seen the whole thing, some where distracted until the ruckus broke out. But everyone reports the same story, that I maliciously injured somebody. And their is no other evidence found, with which to specifically identify me as the culprit.

Is anyone seriously going to tell me, that they have no evidence with which to hold and convict me? That it's just one story against mine? If the nightly news didn't cover it, does that negate the others claims (after all what self respecting news reporter is going to air a story without evidence)? Do we need a scientist to duplicate the event in a lab in order to evidence the story? Do we need to find someone in the room that doesn't believe the claim, but corroborates it? Do their accounts need to include mundane details about who I am, like I fart on the bus and blame other people. Is the testimony of these 10 other people the claim or the evidence.

Now none of this is true, it's a hypothetical. Don't worry, I don't wish anyone ill will, and actually pray for your wellbeing. However the reasoning behind an answer doesn't rely on it being real (just like substituting a variable into an equation).

How would you honestly answer, This is only about this scenario, not considering anything else.

---

Also note, I'm not here to discuss or persuade anyone.  I'm interested in others opinions.  Comments welcome...preferably about the topic

Moderator Notice
Edited by vorlon13 to comply with Terms of Service

Just to be clear, are you alleging to have risen from the dead prior to hitting the rude person over the head?  Because if our charge against you is simply about you lashing out in anger over rude treatment then I think hearsay that is reported uniformly by all present is sufficient so long as nothing 'supernatural' is entailed.

RoadRunner79 Wrote:However if the fingerprints don't conclusively point to me as the attacker, then of what evidence are they?

The fingerprints are evidence that you held the chair, which is independent corroboration that supports the claim that you used the chair in the attack. It's not conclusive to you being the one who committed the assault, but it supports the claim (especially if no one else's fingerprints are on it), as does the victim. Frankly, without an injured party, we can't even be sure anyone was hurt.

As an aside, analysis of the testimony depends on a 'sweet spot'. Too much similarity and it was likely rehearsed, too little and we can't really piece together what was supposed to have happened.

And testimony is like an hypothesis: if it's nontrivial and consequential, you should test it before you accept it.

---

chimp3 Wrote:Here is why I considered the 11 eyewitness accounts as evidence. The evidence may not be enough to convict without video, fingerprints, DNA, etc. but still qualify. Roadrunner stated these people were strangers. The scenario might be a crowded cafe. The witnesses are strangers to one another. What collaboration might there be between them? What would be the motivation for 11 strangers to bear false witness against the attacker?

Without cross-examination, we'll never know.

---

Astonished Wrote:

The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:RR should already know my opinions on testimony, but for those who didn't follow our mostly civil discussion of the topic, I'll state them here. Testimony is fine as evidence, as long as it is corroborative in nature to the physical evidence. Testimony alone should never be sufficient to convict anyone of a serious crime, especially crimes where long stretches in prison or even capital punishment are the possible sentences. Too many innocent people have received convictions when they did not commit the crime for which they are charged.

So, would I be correct in assuming that, if no empirical evidence is found, collecting testimony would then be somewhat of a waste of time because its function, to corroborate the actual physical evidence, cannot be performed in the absence of said evidence?

I'd say it's more the other way around. You look for corroboration (or dis-corroboration) of the testimony. Each individual testament is a claim, but comparing the claims to each other can yield contextual evidence relevant to whether the person is more or less likely to be lying or misremembering or mistaken. Finding other witnesses who can confirm or disconfirm other parts of their story can be useful, like someone seeing one of the testifiers walk into the place a particular time. You can determine other particulars, like if any of the testifiers have relevant criminal records or histories. The tone of the situation changes pretty significantly if one of the testifiers turns out to be involved in organized crime and witness intimidation.

The idea that naked testimony would legitimately be accepted as sufficient evidence to convict rather than a claim to be investigated is troubling. Even without physical evidence (and why would there not be physical evidence?), you need to know who the people testifying are, what their biases might be, what motives might they have to lie, how reliable their recollections are in general, and so forth.

(August 3, 2017 at 9:21 am)Whateverist Wrote:

---

(August 2, 2017 at 12:55 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So I did post this in another thread, but I thought that many might have tuned out in that, and I'm interested in getting a view of peoples opinions. Besides I never did a poll before, and thought in might be fun, as well as provide an option for those who don't want to comment.  I apologize in advance for those who like many options to a poll, but this is an excluded middle type of question (either A or Not A).


So a hypothetical question. A few of us, along with some strangers are sitting in a room (say 11 people in total) I'm trying to have a discussion with spmeone, and he just keeps calling me names, refuses to engage in anything, and just repeats back any accusation I make without even paying attention to the context. (you know the child's game of I know you are but what am I). I lose it, and hit him over the head with a chair, seriously injuring him (blind sided him of course). No one lets me leave, until the cops get there. Everyone gives slightly different accounts. Some seen the whole thing, some where distracted until the ruckus broke out. But everyone reports the same story, that I maliciously injured somebody. And their is no other evidence found, with which to specifically identify me as the culprit.

Is anyone seriously going to tell me, that they have no evidence with which to hold and convict me? That it's just one story against mine? If the nightly news didn't cover it, does that negate the others claims (after all what self respecting news reporter is going to air a story without evidence)? Do we need a scientist to duplicate the event in a lab in order to evidence the story? Do we need to find someone in the room that doesn't believe the claim, but corroborates it? Do their accounts need to include mundane details about who I am, like I fart on the bus and blame other people. Is the testimony of these 10 other people the claim or the evidence.

Now none of this is true, it's a hypothetical. Don't worry, I don't wish anyone ill will, and actually pray for your wellbeing. However the reasoning behind an answer doesn't rely on it being real (just like substituting a variable into an equation).

How would you honestly answer, This is only about this scenario, not considering anything else.

---

Also note, I'm not here to discuss or persuade anyone.  I'm interested in others opinions.  Comments welcome...preferably about the topic

Moderator Notice
Edited by vorlon13 to comply with Terms of Service

---

Just to be clear, are you alleging to have risen from the dead prior to hitting the rude person over the head?  Because if our charge against you is simply about you lashing out in anger over rude treatment then I think hearsay that is reported uniformly by all present is sufficient so long as nothing 'supernatural' is entailed.

Nope... I don't see anything about being raised from the dead in the original post. 
However Mom testifies that I am a good person, and can't believe the other's testimony.

Cyberman Wrote:I prefer the Tony Hancock version.

I prefer the Amy Schumer version.

---

Dropship Wrote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:How would you honestly answer, This is only about this scenario, not considering anything else.

Surely it's a straightforward question to answer, namely that if I saw you smash somebody over the head I'd make a statement to the police saying exactly that, but if I didn't see you do it I'd tell them that instead.
Or am I missing some hidden depth or something in your question?

That's great as long as you couldn't be mistaken, deceived, misremembering, coerced, or have your own motivation to lie.

Your testimony is a good reason to investigate to determine if a crime has been committed, and if so, by whom. If it was good enough to convict, our jails would be filled with victims of false accusations, as it would be an easy way to get rid of people you don't want around.

---

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Your comment brings to mind however;  if testimony is not evidence at all, then why would the police bother gathering it and have procedures to keep it from becoming contaminated. 
The second part of the question is if it is sufficient to come to a reasonable conclusion based on testimony alone.  In this case, we have the testimony of a number of independent witnesses.

Why would the police investigate a claim that a crime has been committed and preserve the exact words of the claim? That's what you're asking?

Evidence is what makes it more or less likely that a particular claim is true. Ten more people telling the same story is just ten more claims in and of themselves, but there can be elements of the testimony that detract from the probability that it's an honest or accurate report, or elements of comparing the testimonies that can add to the probability that the testifiers are being truthful to the best of their knowledge. However the most you can get from that which would support a conviction is textual and contextual evidence that the testifiers are actually reporting the story sincerely and that their reports are similar enough (but not too similar!) to conclude that they're describing the same event.

I still don't think it would be sufficient evidence to convict without cross-examination, an injured party, and a very good reason why physical evidence is not available.

Just to digress slightly, here in Britain scarcely a week goes by without the media reporting that a man has been arrested because adults have come forward to allege he abused them when they were kids many years ago.
Sometimes he'll admit it and rightly get jailed, but in other cases the man denies pointblank that he abused anybody, yet he's still jailed  because the judge/jury chose to believe the 'victims' word over his without a shred of evidence!
That's surely not good?

(August 3, 2017 at 9:24 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

---

RoadRunner79 Wrote:However if the fingerprints don't conclusively point to me as the attacker, then of what evidence are they?

The fingerprints are evidence that you held the chair, which is independent corroboration that supports the claim that you used the chair in the attack. It's not conclusive to you being the one who committed the assault, but it supports the claim (especially if no one else's fingerprints are on it), as does the victim. Frankly, without an injured party, we can't even be sure anyone was hurt.

As an aside, analysis of the testimony depends on a 'sweet spot'. Too much similarity and it was likely rehearsed, too little and we can't really piece together what was supposed to have happened.

And testimony is like an hypothesis: if it's nontrivial and consequential, you should test it before you accept it.

---

chimp3 Wrote:Here is why I considered the 11 eyewitness accounts as evidence. The evidence may not be enough to convict without video, fingerprints, DNA, etc. but still qualify. Roadrunner stated these people were strangers. The scenario might be a crowded cafe. The witnesses are strangers to one another. What collaboration might there be between them? What would be the motivation for 11 strangers to bear false witness against the attacker?

Without cross-examination, we'll never know.

---

Astonished Wrote:So, would I be correct in assuming that, if no empirical evidence is found, collecting testimony would then be somewhat of a waste of time because its function, to corroborate the actual physical evidence, cannot be performed in the absence of said evidence?

---

I'd say it's more the other way around. You look for corroboration (or dis-corroboration) of the testimony. Each individual testament is a claim, but comparing the claims to each other can yield contextual evidence relevant to whether the person is more or less likely to by lying or misremembering or mistaken. Finding other witnesses who can confirm or disconfirm other parts of their story can be useful, like someone seeing one of the testifiers walk into the place a particular time. You can determine other particulars, like if any of the testifiers have relevant criminal records or histories. The tone of the situation changes pretty significantly if one of the testifiers turns out to be involved in organized crime and witness intimidation.

The idea that naked testimony would legitimately be accepted as sufficient evidence to convict rather than a claim to be investigated is troubling. Even without physical evidence (and why would there not be physical evidence?), you need to know who the people testifying are, what their biases might be, what motives might they have to lie, how reliable their recollections are in general, and so forth.

Who said that the claim wasn't investigated.... other means of corroboration, simply didn't result in any definitive evidence.  Now I didn't get into making up individual detailed testimonies for each person, with background information and such. And I agree, it's going to depend on the details (some of which may give reason to doubt). But what if you do not have any good reason to doubt. The testimony is good, and shows a reasonable difference, some fairly similar, some from a different perspective who didn't actually seen me hit the person, but seen immediately after. There's no mob boss, or signs of intimidation, that another person did the crime, and coerced everyone into telling a different story. I was held after the fact, so there is no chance of mistaken identity. But no other corroborating evidence besides the testimony which points to me.

Basically is there any way, in which the testimony is considered part of the body of facts and information which indicate that the proposition that I assaulted the other person is true?
Secondly, could this be enough to form a rational conclusion reasonable enough to convict me of wrong doing?

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Who said that the claim wasn't investigated.... other means of corroboration, simply didn't result in any definitive evidence.

So you're now going to allow things into your story that you didn't say in the first place? You seem rather inconsistent on that point. Is there an actual injured party in evidence?

---

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Now I didn't get into making up individual detailed testimonies for each person, with background information and such.  And I agree, it's going to depend on the details (some of which may give reason to doubt).  But what if you do not have any good reason to doubt.

Due to presumption of innocence (or the null hypothesis), I always have a good reason to doubt.

(August 3, 2017 at 10:11 am)Dropship Wrote: Just to digress slightly, here in Britain scarcely a week goes by without the media reporting that a man has been arrested because adults have come forward to allege he abused them when they were kids many years ago.
Sometimes he'll admit it and rightly get jailed, but in other cases the man denies pointblank that he abused anybody, yet he's still jailed  because the judge/jury chose to believe the 'victims' word over his without a shred of evidence!
That's surely not good?

There are certainly difficulties to be discussed as well.  I did purposely include multiple and independent witnesses into the scenario for a reason.  I think we share some of the same concerns.

RoadRunner79 Wrote:The testimony is good, and shows a reasonable difference, some fairly similar, some from a different perspective who didn't actually seen me hit the person, but seen immediately after. There's no mob boss, or signs of intimidation, that another person did the crime, and coerced everyone into telling a different story.  I was held after the fact, so there is no chance of mistaken identity.    But no other corroborating evidence besides the testimony which points to me.

If you're going to keep adding details, eventually you can get to the point where it would be reasonable to convict. I'll note that you're appealing to things besides their naked testimony, like character evaluation, to get there.

---

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Basically is there any way, in which the testimony is considered part of the body of facts and information which indicate that the proposition that I assaulted the other person is true?
Secondly, could this be enough to form a rational conclusion reasonable enough to convict me of wrong doing?

If you find enough evidence to support the testimony, including things like no mob bosses, no relevant biases, the right amount of consistency, AND AN INJURED PARTY, it becomes a claim that has been sufficiently tested enough to make it reasonable to accept, provisionally. The testimony provides the narrative that accounts for the event.

The claim is that you beat someone with a chair.

The evidence is the independent corroboration and appropriate consistency across testimonies of supposed eyewitnesses, and knowledge of the character and reliability of the witnesses. These things are the evidence that supports the claim/accusation. These might support the claim sufficiently to reasonably convict if there is an injured party to present and the details of the claim are otherwise plausible (you're not claimed to have wielded the chair telekinetically, for instance).

(August 3, 2017 at 10:19 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Who said that the claim wasn't investigated.... other means of corroboration, simply didn't result in any definitive evidence.

So you're now going to allow things into your story that you didn't say in the first place? You seem rather inconsistent on that point. Is there an actual injured party in evidence?

It is my hypothetical.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to clarify when people are trying to evade the point, which is a question about witness testimony apart from anything else.
In the scenario I gave, I think there was an injured person, as well as the chair.  What if I only robbed him (took the $500 in cash that he had).  A number of independent people witnessed it, and again mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture.

Are you saying there is no way, based on the testimony of others alone, that there would be reason for a conviction of the crime?  

Quote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Now I didn't get into making up individual detailed testimonies for each person, with background information and such.  And I agree, it's going to depend on the details (some of which may give reason to doubt).  But what if you do not have any good reason to doubt.

Due to presumption of innocence (or the null hypothesis), I always have a good reason to doubt.

Thanks for the opinion... I find it interesting.

---

(August 2, 2017 at 11:48 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: He will keep changing the rules and adding to the narrative in an attempt to push it towards his preferred conclusion. And any other evidence will be dismissed via what if . I say we play this game too.

Feel free to "play this game too"; however I would ask that you make a new thread.  

Quote:This idiot honestly thinks we need witnesses to convict people. Behold crime investigation of the 18th century . You ever wonder why they never caught jack the ripper. My I also point out the law is never 100% certain only reasonably certain.

No I don't think that.  And I agree, we don't need absolute certainty.