Evidence to Convict?

[Ravenshire]

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?

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.

That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.

There are many reasons I hold this position on testimony that I do, but one (exemplified in chip3's post and bolded by me) stands out above all others. The human mind, especially memory, is simply too unreliable.

Chimp3 stated that RR said (another example of why hearsay is usually denied in court) that the 11 witnesses were strangers. RR said (again the bolding is mine):

A few of us, along with some strangers are sitting in a room...

RR was not describing a room full of 11 strangers and he certainly wasn't describing a situation where everyone was a stranger to everybody else. Here we have an example where only a couple days have passed and the quote is readily available for review. Having people accurately recount what happened months, in some cases years, after the events is expecting too much of a weak tool.

To answer your question directly RR. No, I would not be willing to convict based on testimony alone. If the forensics team is so bad that they can't get any physical evidence of the crime, especially the type of crime you're describing, you probably shouldn't even be arraigned. Held, yes. Arraigned, maybe, but probably no. Convicted, a resounding 'hell no.'

Not trying to pick on you chimp3. Your post was just a handy example of something RR and I discussed in another thread and something that I'm glaringly guilty of as well, though I see that the examples I gave from my own experience and those I gave from a legal case have done nothing to alter RR's opinion on testimony and I can only believe it's because his beliefs rely so heavily on testimony (second-, third-, and fourth-hand testimony [at best] to boot) and little to none on hard evidence.

[LadyForCamus]

The testimony of 11 witnesses may be reasonably convincing when the claim is, "RR hit that guy in the head with a chair." (I'm assuming the poor shmuck has a mark on his head as evidence of the claim he was, in fact, hit.)

When the claim is, "a god exists who is omniscient and omnibenevolent, created the universe and all living things, created humans (who ate a magical fruit because a snake told them to)
then sent himself to earth in the form of a man, his son (?), who died and then came back to life to join his god-dad in the alternate, timeless, spaceless dimension where he resides."

Yeah...no amount of testimony in the world, in the absence of corroborative evidence, is sufficient for that, RR. Not to rational folks, anyway.

[Amarok]

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?

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.

That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.

There are many reasons I hold this position on testimony that I do, but one (exemplified in chip3's post and bolded by me) stands out above all others. The human mind, especially memory, is simply too unreliable.

Chimp3 stated that RR said (another example of why hearsay is usually denied in court) that the 11 witnesses were strangers. RR said (again the bolding is mine):

A few of us, along with some strangers are sitting in a room...

RR was not describing a room full of 11 strangers and he certainly wasn't describing a situation where everyone was a stranger to everybody else. Here we have an example where only a couple days have passed and the quote is readily available for review. Having people accurately recount what happened months, in some cases years, after the events is expecting too much of a weak tool.

To answer your question directly RR. No, I would not be willing to convict based on testimony alone. If the forensics team is so bad that they can't get any physical evidence of the crime, especially the type of crime you're describing, you probably shouldn't even be arraigned. Held, yes. Arraigned, maybe, but probably no. Convicted, a resounding 'hell no.'

Not trying to pick on you chimp3. Your post was just a handy example of something RR and I discussed in another thread and something that I'm glaringly guilty of as well, though I see that the examples I gave from my own experience and those I gave from a legal case have done nothing to alter RR's opinion on testimony and I can only believe it's because his beliefs rely so heavily on testimony (second-, third-, and fourth-hand testimony [at best] to boot) and little to none on hard evidence.

Agreed if the forensic team is so bad they can't find any actual strong evidence .Then the best they can do is hold them for a time not convict them on weak evidence. But I have said none of this is like the so called accounts of the bible.

---

The testimony of 11 witnesses may be reasonably convincing when the claim is, "RR hit that guy in the head with a chair."  (I'm assuming the poor shmuck has a mark on his head as evidence of the claim he was, in fact, hit.)

When the claim is, "a god exists who is omniscient and omnibenevolent, created the universe and all living things, created humans (who ate a magical fruit because a snake told them to)
then sent himself to earth in the form of a man, his son (?), who died and then came back to life to join his god-dad in the alternate, timeless, spaceless dimension where he resides."

Yeah...no amount of testimony in the world, in the absence of corroborative evidence, is sufficient for that, RR.   Not to rational folks, anyway.

Indeed in this context it's different

[Astonished]

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?

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'm not even sure it's really all that helpful anyway, like in a situation such as, "No, I don't recall seeing the suspect in the room at the time he claims." Still subject to all the horrible flaws in human cognition.

I remember during the OJ Simpson trial, when it constantly interrupted my afternoon cartoons twenty-some-odd years ago, that Hispanic woman, the neighbor or something, was pressed if she could remember if his car was in his driveway at such and such a time. It went on for days or at least some unreasonable amount of time. I cannot think of a more inane time-wasting exercise in a court proceeding.

[Astreja]

Thanks,   I did miss that part if Astreja was trying to change things though.
However if the fingerprints don't conclusively point to me as the attacker, then of what evidence are they?

You keep on adding new "ifs" to the equation.  Let's say for now that they are your prints, and that they're placed on the parts of the chair that you were holding onto when you assaulted the victim. In the presence of other testable things, for example blood from a head wound where the chair leg struck the victim, it's making a rather convincing case against you.

I see no comparable evidence for the foundational claims of Christianity, just hearsay recorded more than a generation after the events they describe.  To put this in perspective, the gospel of Mark (thought to be written circa 66-70 CE) is analogous to someone writing an account in 2017 of miracles of The Force that occurred in an obscure theatre on the Star Wars opening weekend in 1977.

[Amarok]

Thanks,   I did miss that part if Astreja was trying to change things though.
However if the fingerprints don't conclusively point to me as the attacker, then of what evidence are they?

You keep on adding new "ifs" to the equation.  Let's say for now that they are your prints, and that they're placed on the parts of the chair that you were holding onto when you assaulted the victim. In the presence of other testable things, for example blood from a head wound where the chair leg struck the victim, it's making a rather convincing case against you.

I see no comparable evidence for the foundational claims of Christianity, just hearsay recorded more than a generation after the events they describe.  To put this in perspective, the gospel of Mark (thought to be written circa 66-70 CE) is analogous to someone writing an account in 2017 of miracles of The Force that occurred in an obscure theatre on the Star Wars opening weekend in 1977.

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.

---

If we can demonstrate a head wound . Place your finger prints on the weapon . Put a motive to the attack . and establish you had the opportunity to attack. Oh and the fact the claim is totally mundane and fits our knowledge of attacks . Then we have a strong case for gulit. 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.

If on the other hand you claimed a angel  flew down and vaporized a person and some people saw it . That going to take a lot more evidence.

If we have camera footage and fresh DNA that places the suspect 500 miles away from the scene . That the person is crippled and can't lift the chair . All the witnesses were strangers but the victim was a jerk and thus people had a prejudice against him . The question of why he would attack a random stranger. Would all have to be factored into a bayesian formula.

And before Road complains I can play the what if game too. This is why possibility fallacy idile speculation is useless .

[Foxaèr]

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

My concern is that you should have been more honest with your intent with this scenario.

You admit in the scenario that you did hit him over the head with the chair, and then ask us whether or not we would convict you based merely on eyewitness testimony.

My guess is that this ties into biblical eyewitness testimony which is not accepted as truth by atheists. If we would trust the eyewitnesses who saw what you did, how could we possibly not trust biblical eyewitness testimony?

Easy.

The only eyewitness testimony of Jesus is within the very bible itself, and there is no mention of Jesus outside of the bible to prove that he existed. Circular reasoning is not evidence; Jesus is not real based merely on eyewitness testimony only found in the bible.

[Ravenshire]

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 don't think prosecutors should stop collecting evidence of any type until they achieve a conviction or they determine that no conviction is possible. You never know when one of the witnesses may come forward with video evidence of the crime that came from, let's say a security camera that they didn't, at the time of questioning, think was even turned on, let alone recording. At that point, even if the video doesn't clearly show the perpetrator, there is now real, physical evidence for the testimony to support. If you stopped collecting, or worse, didn't bother to collect, testimony because of a lack of physical evidence, your case is kinda screwed. Especially if the video isn't clear. On the other hand, I don't think RR's little fairy tale of a violent bodily crime being committed without any physical evidence is at all plausible, especially with the tools forensics teams have available today.

[Amarok]

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 don't think prosecutors should stop collecting evidence of any type until they achieve a conviction or they determine that no conviction is possible. You never know when one of the witnesses may come forward with video evidence of the crime that came from, let's say a security camera that they didn't, at the time of questioning, think was even turned on, let alone recording. At that point, even if the video doesn't clearly show the perpetrator, there is now real, physical evidence for the testimony to support. If you stopped collecting, or worse, didn't bother to collect, testimony because of a lack of physical evidence, your case is kinda screwed. Especially if the video isn't clear. On the other hand, I don't think RR's little fairy tale of a violent bodily crime being committed without any physical evidence is at all plausible, especially with the tools forensics teams have available today.

Considering that that violent bodily crime is physical and thus we would expect would leave physical. Roads ignorance of forensics is simply an argument from ignorance .

[LadyForCamus]

And anyway, the poll itself is a false dichotomy. Yes, the testimony CAN be considered evidence but it may not be ENOUGH evidence, by itself, to land you a conviction. Hence the statement: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If eye witness testimony from 11 people isn't even necessarily a slam dunk for the prosecution in a run-of-the mill assault case, then what grade of evidence should we be demanding for claims of the messiah?

Hint: More eyewitnesses does not necessarily equal a higher likelihood that the claim is true.

---

Let me ask you this, RR:

What if we found a document dated 15 years ago that describes testimony from 11 anonymous people (we don't know anything about them other than their first names, and we have no way of tracking them down to conduct interviews) who claimed you hit a man in the head with a chair in 2002. The alleged victim is also not available for interview as he has since passed away. Should you be charged with this alleged crime? Should you be convicted based on the testimony described in my document?