Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

Wouldn't there be, for example, bloodstains on the chair matching the victim's? Splinters of wood or whatever in the wound matching damage to the chair? Silly physical stuff like that?

Quite apart from that, those dozen witnesses are in one room at the same time giving broadly the same account; which is completely different to any of the gospel characters who are anonymous, appear nowhere else in any record and contradict on important details, while the gospels themselves were written over a protracted period and many years after the alleged fact. Again, one of these things is not like the others.

Now watch him make up new details to try and refute it

Nope...still remains the same. Trying to avoid the questions doesn't change anything.

[Cyberman]

I agree and wonder why you are doing it.

[RoadRunner79]

I agree and wonder why you are doing it.

I think it is interesting to see what people think in this case, and why if they wish to comment.

I wanted to present this scenario apart from any arguments or trying to persuade someone. I'm not making an argument for witness testimony, and this isn't about God.  Although it is probably obvious that the questions where intentionally designed from some arguments heard in other contexts. 

It's about seeing how people respond.   Personally, I find the responses with anger and hostility towards me, rather interesting.   Also, avoiding the question or trying to change it has it's own fascinating questions.  It's just a hypothetical and some simple questions for the poll, and fairly simple questions after the scenario.    It's also curious the seeming need to bring the topic of God into it.   Does that effect ones reasoning?

So just want to see what other's opinions are, and also think that it can be useful for some introspection.

[Cyberman]

So what are your views regarding physical forensic evidence, and the quality of any eyewitness testimony?

[Mister Agenda]

I assume for the sake of the argument, that for some reason the injured party isn't available as proof that someone was really injured. In that circumstance, I would not convict. I need more than a story that something happened before I'll vote to deprive you of your freedom.

If the injured party IS available as proof that someone was actually interested, we're no longer relying solely on eyewitness testimony, are we?

[Cyberman]

That's a very good point. Without an alleged victim, all the eyewitnesses in the world aren't going to cut it.

[Astonished]

This is also calling out a specific member, which I was going to report. Someone beat me to the punch, though.

I was thinking about this after. It was a shameful jab, which was both poor taste  and an unwise choice on my part.

Tizheruk I apologize for using your name in my example, for bringing things across threads, and theirs no excuse for taking a shot at you like this. I'm sorry.   I also apologize to Tazzy for the same in the other thread

For admins: if you want to change the post to remove the name (make generic), and the cheap shot, please do so. And if you want to leave it there, and I will own up to my poor actions.

Oh, go fuck yourself, you knew damn well what you were doing, prick. Hell, if you had asked me if you could have permission to use my name, I might have let you, since I already can't think any lower of you and so you stooping to personal attacks wouldn't faze me one bit.

If you perceive mockery and hostility, it's because your beliefs and way of looking at the world are ludicrous and deserving of mockery, and your stubborn refusal to see reason and acknowledge evidence (the definition, the hierarchy of what is considered that, the fact that evidence for any supernatural would have to be leaps and bounds beyond what we use for the natural) and still criticize us for being closed-minded or ignorant or biased or whatever, those are insults and we're simply responding in kind. You're hardly unique in espousing this mentality but your persistence and failure to do any self-reflection whatsoever (this phony-baloney retraction here is the first I recall seeing anything of the sort) shows your lack of respect for the opposition, so if you can't even meet us half-way, what do you expect?

There are no alternative facts. Religion does not get a special exemption of any kind for anything. It's flat wrong and if the powers behind them are indeed real, they should have the power to make this evident and indisputable. It's neither of those things. Get real and grow up, for your own sake.

[Mister Agenda]

Even with an alleged victim, I'm reluctant to convict based just on eyewitness testimony. I would really like to know if the witnesses had a motive to falsely accuse RR.

[Astonished]

Even with an alleged victim, I'm reluctant to convict based just on eyewitness testimony. I would really like to know if the witnesses had a motive to falsely accuse RR.

LOL, I had already mentioned that as the very first possibility for why eyewitness testimony is not reliable (and presented evidence that that would be a very reasonable justification to make that assumption about him).

[RoadRunner79]

So what are your views regarding physical forensic evidence, and the quality of any eyewitness testimony?

I think that the more evidence the better, and each type of evidence may have aspects or flaws, that you need to mitigate.   I also agree, that there is varying quality within witness testimony.  I don't place one over the other a priori, but think that each case needs to evaluate all the evidence individually to determine what it is making evident.