(August 3, 2017 at 11:24 am)Astreja Wrote:

(August 3, 2017 at 6:16 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Not adding new "ifs".  The description, that there was no explicit physical evidence which pointed to any particular person was there from the beginning. And it's also the point of the question.

Ah.  What you have there is a straw man -- in the case of a physical assault, there would almost certainly be some physical evidence.  Without a victim or evidence that there was an actual set-to, the police would have nothing to go on and wouldn't be able to file charges.

That does appear to answer your question -- "No, statements of alleged witnesses are in themselves not enough to go on."

There was a victim, in the original description.  And he is getting worse unfortunately.  

Are you saying, that if I have "my people " make the body disappear, that the numerous witnesses who had seen the body (police, doctors, and others), would have no evidence that there was even a crime?  I'll instruct them to burn down the hospital to make sure there is no physical evidence left behind.  People can even see them do it.  They can even tell them exactly why it is being done, and by whom.   If there is no physical evidence which ties back to them then they cannot convict me of either crime.  And best of all anybody who says that I did it, is irrational basing their opinion on the claims of alleged witnesses and hearsay?

---

(August 3, 2017 at 11:36 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Yes, and the testimony is the evidence of the act.... correct?

No. The injured victim and the chair used to bludgeon him are the evidences of the act.

Yes, but doesn't tell who did it?

---

(August 3, 2017 at 11:06 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:It is my hypothetical.

And it's reasonable for anyone else to take the same liberties with the OP that you do, and unreasonable for you to bitch about it when they do.

---

RoadRunner79 Wrote: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.

Are you claiming that I have tried to evade your point?

Are you trying to change the scenario to not deal with a conclusion based primarily on witness testimony?

Quote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:In the scenario I gave, I think there was an injured person, as well as the chair.

So you have a victim as well as the weapon, to physically show that someone was injured and that the chair was the instrument of that injury. You have physical evidence that supports the claim that an assault took place. What is lacking is physical evidence pointing to you (perhaps you wore gloves). This is independent corroboration of the part of the claim that asserts that the person was beaten with the chair. Then, with all the other details you added about the impeccable character, lack of bias, and reliability of the witnesses, and presuming the defense gets to cross-examine them; in my opinion, you'd be convicted, because the claim withstood scrutiny proportionate to the seriousness of the consequences.

Are you saying that there is evidence that I did it?

Quote:Yes, but doesn't tell who did it?

Generally speaking, it does...but if it didn;t, then we have a "reasonable doubt" and a presumption of innocence.  I expect this to fall on deaf ears, being that you're fully onboard with lynching at a fundamental level - it;s not surprising that you would accept it elsewhere and elsewise.

Even the addition that everyone's fingerprints are on it doesn't rescue your poor attempt. Is everyone right handed, like you? Is everyone the same height and build as you? You see..they can determine a hell of alot about an attacker by the wound. Who was in the spray pattern of the blood that busted out from the poor douches head when you bashed it in?

You made explicit reference to a situation in which there could not possibly be a dearth of evidence. Any attempt to minimize or alter the intial scenario to reduce that evidence will inexorably lead to a situation in which the only reasonable conclusion would be that a crime was not committed..because such a crime would be fucking impossible. What is the value of that testimony, then? It's clear evidence of a lynching.

Conveniently, while your example is not an analog to magic book, your treatment of that example is -exactly- the same as the treatment of magic book. It makes -many- claims for which the evidence would be overwhelming and undeniable. There would be evidence laying, literally, all over the globe. Except...there isn't any at all, and apologetic attempts to make excuses for that reduce the narrative such that they provide direct and demonstrable evidence of a lynching of the truth by a clutch of dedicated liars and useful idiots.

(August 3, 2017 at 11:51 am)Khemikal Wrote:

Quote:Yes, but doesn't tell who did it?

Generally speaking, it does...but if it didn;t, then we have a "reasonable doubt" and a presumption of innocence.  I expect this to fall on deaf ears, being that you're fully onboard with lynching at a fundamental level - it;s not surprising that you would accept it elsewhere and elsewise.

Even the addition that everyone's fingerprints are on it doesn't rescue your poor attempt. Is everyone right handed, like you?  Is everyone the same height and build as you?  You see..they can determine a hell of alot about an attacker by the wound.  Who was in the spray pattern of the blood that busted out from the poor douches head when you bashed it in?

You made explicit reference to a situation in which there could not possibly be a dearth of evidence.  Any attempt to minimize or alter the intial scenario to reduce that evidence will inexorably lead to a situation in which the only reasonable conclusion would be that a crime was not committed..because such a crime would be fucking impossible.  What is the value of that testimony, then?

As i said he will keep changing the narrative to suit his agenda rather then let it stand on it's own .  Because it can't . And his ignorance of forensics just compounds this and produces the need to keep making stuff up. To a point were the crime is indeed impossible or at least extremely unlikely . It reminds me of Carl Sagans invisible dragon . Were the person keeps saying "but it's an inaudible dragon" or " it has no smell " or "it does not eat" .At some point were free to say the dragon is not there.

RoadRunner79 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:No. The injured victim and the chair used to bludgeon him are the evidences of the act.

Yes, but doesn't tell who did it?

Nope, but that's not what you asked, is it?

How many ways do I have to say that once it's been established that a crime has occurred and there are accusations/claims/testimonies as to 'who done it', and that testimony has been supported by analysis, comparison, research into the character, biases, and reliability of the accusers; and survived cross-examination by the defense; that it's reasonable to accept the testimonies/claims as very probably true, and therefore reasonable to convict?

Isn't that what you should have before you convict? Evidence that the testimonies are consistent with the available physical evidence (victim and chair) and not from people likely to lie about it or be mistaken or motivated to spin their testimony against the accused? Good reasons to think that the testimony of the accusers is independent and without collusion and plausible? Those things aren't internal to the accounts. They're things that support an evaluation that the testimony is more likely to be true. In other words, evidence.

---

RoadRunner79 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Are you claiming that I have tried to evade your point?

Are you trying to change the scenario to not deal with a conclusion based primarily on witness testimony?

Speaking of evasion, that's what you're doing here with my question about whether you are claiming that I have tried to evade your point. That I have not tried to change the scenario in that fashion or for that reason is immaterial to whether you are claiming I did.

RR, to MA: People are changing my scenario to evade my point!
MA, to RR: Are you claiming that I have tried to evade your point?
RR, to MA, seemingly: If you say you were, I'm claiming that you did; but if you say you weren't, I'm not claiming that you did....

---

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Are you saying that there is evidence that I did it?

I am saying that there is evidence that makes it more reasonable to accept the claim that you did it.

(August 3, 2017 at 11:51 am)Khemikal Wrote:

---

Quote:Yes, but doesn't tell who did it?

Generally speaking, it does...but if it didn;t, then we have a "reasonable doubt" and a presumption of innocence.  I expect this to fall on deaf ears, being that you're fully onboard with lynching at a fundamental level - it;s not surprising that you would accept it elsewhere and elsewise.

Even the addition that everyone's fingerprints are on it doesn't rescue your poor attempt. Is everyone right handed, like you?  Is everyone the same height and build as you?  You see..they can determine a hell of alot about an attacker by the wound.  Who was in the spray pattern of the blood that busted out from the poor douches head when you bashed it in?

You made explicit reference to a situation in which there could not possibly be a dearth of evidence.  Any attempt to minimize or alter the intial scenario to reduce that evidence will inexorably lead to a situation in which the only reasonable conclusion would be that a crime was not committed..because such a crime would be fucking impossible.  What is the value of that testimony, then?  It's clear evidence of a lynching.

Conveniently, while your example is not an analog to magic book, your treatment of that example is -exactly- the same as the treatment of magic book.  It makes -many- claims for which the evidence would be overwhelming and undeniable.  There would be evidence laying, literally, all over the globe.  Except...there isn't any at all, and apologetic attempts to make excuses for that reduce the narrative such that they provide direct and demonstrable evidence of a lynching of the truth by a clutch of dedicated liars and useful idiots.

---

Thanks for the reply. I think that it is interesting that you don't believe that there are cases where the forensic evidence doesn't point to a particular person or cannot identify the suspect directly (that such a crime is impossible). Even in the many of the examples you are adding, at best it gives you a general description, which may help support the case, but requires further evidence. That if testimony is the only evidence for a particular person, it is equated to a lynching.

Also, I agree. I'm not trying to make to make an analog for anything in particular. Just a situation where the only or primary evidence is the testimony of others, and there isn't reason to doubt that testimony. I want to learn how various people here think concerning testimony as evidence.

(August 3, 2017 at 12:46 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Thanks for the reply.   I think that it is interesting that you don't believe that there are cases where the forensic evidence doesn't point to a particular person or cannot identify the suspect directly (that such a crime is impossible).

I told you that such a crime with -no- forensic evidence is impossible..because it is.  I told you that a crime in which the available evidence points to no one in particular is not a crime in which anyone in particular should be convicted, because it isn't. You can't manage to respond to that, and so..like your own example, you seek to make changes.

Quote:Even in the many of the examples you are adding, at best it gives you a general description, which may help support the case, but requires further evidence.  That if testimony is the only evidence for a particular person, it is equated to a lynching.

LOL, still bitching about people adding things? No one adding a thing, you omitted whatever you found convenient, until it wasn't convenient.

Quote:Also, I agree.  I'm not trying to make to make an analog for anything in particular.  Just a situation where the only or primary evidence is the testimony of others, and there isn't reason to doubt that testimony.  I want to learn how various people here think concerning testimony as evidence.

I guess that puts you in the dedicated liar category rather than the useful idiot cohort, but we already knew that, didn't we?  You see, we have -evidence- of your motivations and reliability as a witness on your own behalf. You routinely shill for christ, routinely get caught shilling for christ, and routinely deny that you were even shilling for christ, while you shill for christ.

This isn't even the first time you've shilled for christ -in precisely this way- on the boards.

(August 3, 2017 at 12:05 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

---

(August 3, 2017 at 11:51 am)Khemikal Wrote: Generally speaking, it does...but if it didn;t, then we have a "reasonable doubt" and a presumption of innocence.  I expect this to fall on deaf ears, being that you're fully onboard with lynching at a fundamental level - it;s not surprising that you would accept it elsewhere and elsewise.

Even the addition that everyone's fingerprints are on it doesn't rescue your poor attempt. Is everyone right handed, like you?  Is everyone the same height and build as you?  You see..they can determine a hell of alot about an attacker by the wound.  Who was in the spray pattern of the blood that busted out from the poor douches head when you bashed it in?

You made explicit reference to a situation in which there could not possibly be a dearth of evidence.  Any attempt to minimize or alter the intial scenario to reduce that evidence will inexorably lead to a situation in which the only reasonable conclusion would be that a crime was not committed..because such a crime would be fucking impossible.  What is the value of that testimony, then?

---

As i said he will keep changing the narrative to suit his agenda rather then let it stand on it's own .  Because it can't . And his ignorance of forensics just compounds this and produces the need to keep making stuff up. To a point were the crime is indeed impossible or at least extremely unlikely .

Where do you think that I have changed the narrative so greatly? What do you think is my agenda? What do you think is my ignorance of forensics that makes this scenario impossible? It appears, that you are saying that forensics can solve every crime, and that if it can't, then there was no crime committed.

Not content to alter your own narrative, you're now supplying the narratives of others in direct contradiction to a record in which you are now posting -of- what others have said, lol.

You know what I want to know, since we're just learning about people and how they think, in this thread....................

Is this how you are with everything, in every subject, every area of life? Or is it just the One Thing™ that turns you into a deceitful loon?

(August 3, 2017 at 12:22 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RR Wrote:Are you trying to change the scenario to not deal with a conclusion based primarily on witness testimony?

Speaking of evasion, that's what you're doing here with my question about whether you are claiming that I have tried to evade your point. That I have not tried to change the scenario in that fashion or for that reason is immaterial to whether you are claiming I did.

RR, to MA: People are changing my scenario to evade my point!
MA, to RR: Are you claiming that I have tried to evade your point?
RR, to MA, seemingly: If you say you were, I'm claiming that you did; but if you say you weren't, I'm not claiming that you did....

I think that it appears that you are.  But was allowing you to clarify, in case I misunderstood your intentions.

1. Yes you do keep changing the narrative when one of your points is debunked

2. Your agenda has already been exposed on this thread it starts with b and ends with e . And your attempts to hid it behind fake neutrality just makes you look dishonest

3. The fact you don't seem to have a clue how said science works . Let alone assess it's abilty to solve a crime . And why you keep needing to create defeaters .

4. So we can add ignorance between ontology and epistemology to your failings . And we can also add  straw men  because no were did I say it could solve every crime .

Also your lame attempts to seem Socratic and trying to shift me into the defensive is just weak sauce .

---

Quote:You know what I want to know, since we're just learning about people and how they think, in this thread....................

Wow it takes some serious balls for him to pretend that this isn't a weakly veiled attempt at apologetics .

Quote:Not content to alter your own narrative, you're now supplying the narratives of others in direct contradiction to a record in which you are now posting -of- what others have said, lol.

Indeed it  takes Trump level pig headiness to deny he changed the narrative . Then spin other peoples.