(August 5, 2017 at 12:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It occurs to me, that perhaps there is a difference in locale.  Frankly the extent to which some post modern ideas are being followed to day, simply amazes me.  In the US, the police are going to take statements in the investigation, not just as a stab in the dark, to find other physical corroboration, but as actual evidence in determining the truth of the matter.  Further the court may call a witness to testify to what they saw or heard.  Is this different where ever you are at?

I don't have really very much experience with the law other than a few times in my entire life; and the court system not at all (other than two occasions not involving me personally and which I will not divulge here). What I can say is the seeming lack of eptitude and indeed interest shown by our police has only manifested since perhaps the start of this year. My guess it's something to do with cuts in the police service - several major stations have been forced into closure, including our own local one here in Walsall. A reported burglary about a month ago was treated with indifference, with the excuse that the London and Manchester bombings were being given higher priority. It wasn't helped by the baffling fact that the case was assigned to an officer that they knew was going on annual leave the next day.

What if the eyewitness testimony contradicted the physical evidence to the benefit of the assailant? Let's say the chair has the supposed assailants fingerprints, the victim has a gash on his head, and the accused has the victims blood splatter on his shirt. However, 11 unrelated eyewitnesses can place the accused at a place and time that makes his participation in the crime impossible. Does eyewitness testimony have any validity then? Perhaps the accused touched the chair the day before, he helped the victim who had a bloody nose. The assumed victim has a personal beef with the accused.

Guys roads just gonna keep flailing at undermining actual standards for evidence . And trying to replace it with standards that allow him to assert his preferred   mythology is true and of course failing .  It's just like Wooter with his attempts at assert reformed epistemology .

Road, out of genuine curiousity, if this discussion has nothing to do with biblical claims, then what? Do you just have a personal, pet interest in the subject? Are you perhaps considering law school? 😉

Maybe he's got a guilty secret.

(August 5, 2017 at 12:18 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The amount of pages you've wasted tryng to maintan the credibility of testimony when the very standard you're referring to absolutely does -not- accept testimony in a vacuum as sufficient to convict is staggering.

If all the prosecution has on you is someone saying you did something - it won't even make it to trial.  It doesn't even meet the basic requirements for litigation, you can forget about a conviction.  This isn;t an opinion, or a philosophic position on the nature of evidence, or even debatable.  It's a cut and dry answer to your question.

Witnesses are not called to -be- the facts of a case, but to support the facts of a case as established by the defense or prosecution.  The police take those statements for precisely the same reason.  They hope to find a narrative between respondants that matches the evidence available.

Were you here earlier or did you just pop in? I honestly don't remember, but I feel like up til this point, no one's been directly and overtly saying exactly that except me. So if he tries to give you bullshit for an answer too, he'll be proving he's just making a straw man out of me.

Quote:Nope... was never the intention to make a connection for things Biblical.  Not even really about only a court case.  Just testimony as evidence.

Oh, come on.  I was born at night, but it wasn't last night, ffs.

Boru

(August 5, 2017 at 9:49 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Nope... was never the intention to make a connection for things Biblical.  Not even really about only a court case.  Just testimony as evidence.

Oh, come on.  I was born at night, but it wasn't last night, ffs.

Boru

No fucking shit. I almost called him out on that too but I hate how hard it is to stack quotes in here.

Yup as I said the gul of pretending despite evidence to contrary .

I could say the same thing to him as I say to people who ask about mathematics 'when am I ever gonna use this in real life, why do I have to learn this?'

"If you want to be as smart as you possibly can be, you will (learn math/abandon your irrational religious beliefs)."