Testimony is Evidence

[Neo-Scholastic]

Evidence simply means that which is evident which is not the same as proof. It is evident that people sometimes give their testimony about various things from alien abductions to the depression relieving power of Zoloft (finally an actual A to Z!).

The only question is how much weight we give to different kinds of evidence and why - multiple witnesses, independent accounts, witness credibility, collaborating facts, altered behaviors, etc.

[The Grand Nudger]

What does my following testimony make evident?

-I had a cheeseburger for lunch.

---

How about the following?

Miscre had brentin for gigou.

(happen to catch what my completely uncontroversial testimony -didn't- make evident, when it was restated?)

[Minimalist]

Evidence simply means that which is evident which is not the same as proof. It is evident that people sometimes give their testimony about various things from alien abductions to the depression relieving power of Zoloft (finally an actual A to Z!).

The only question is how much weight we give to different kinds of evidence and why - multiple witnesses, independent accounts, witness credibility, collaborating facts, altered behaviors, etc.

You are overly generous calling alien abduction claims "evidence."  Just as you are equally overly generous equating the supernatural claims of your holy horseshit as "evidence."

They are merely assertions without supporting evidence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What does my following testimony make evident?

-I had a cheeseburger for lunch.

If, in addition to your own claim, another patron says he saw you wiping ketchup from your mouth and if the waitress tells me she served you a cheeseburger, and a bystander says you entered the diner and left a short while later, THEN I would be more likely to believe your testimony, in light of their additional testimony, and accept that evidently you did in fact eat a cheeseburger.

(Can someone 'had' a cheeseburger and 'ate' it too? I guess that's entirely possible using the past tense. Personally, I'm a Chicago-style red hot eater myself, preferably with sport peppers, home-cut fries, and a pint from Half-Acre brewing company.)

[RoadRunner79]

Nope... not filling up the thread with useless posts.  Especially when people are just going to say I'm lying anyway.

You are the one who brought up the appeals, I am asking if there is a difference if the testimony overrides the DNA evidence in the appeal, or in the trial.



The same reasons apply, unless you want to support a category error.   If you are saying that Testimony is not evidence, because of X,Y,Z.  Then if X,Y,Z are found in DNA cases, it would also follow that DNA is not evidence for the same reasons.  (assuming that the argument is valid to begin with).  

If not

• there is something else, which you are basing your reasoning on (which needs to be stated and supported).
  
• there are special circumstances which makes something apply or not apply to one or the other (which you need to give your reasons for).
  
• You are just inconsistent in applying your logic.
  
• Or the argument was never really logical to begin with.
  

This is why the anecdotes of false convictions based on testimony are not evidence. They may be evidence of a single case, but a conclusion based on a small sample (especially if you cherry pick only cases that support your conclusion) is not good reasoning for a general proclamation on the entire category..   Now I do believe that both DNA and testimony are generally reliable and both are considered evidence.   So in these arguments, there must be something wrong in the premise  (Not evidence because of X,Y,Z) Now you could make the arguments or show the figures that testimony as a whole
is generally unreliable with a success rate lower than a certain threshold of which we could compare to other things as well.  However this is not being done.

Now if you think my reasons are faulty or that I still don't know how logic works, please be specific, in what you feel I'm doing wrong.

Your intellectual dishonesty has grown to disgusting proportions. You can't show that testimony is reliable, therefore everyone is cherry picking and providing anecdotes.

You want to show testimony is reliabe? Show us cases where the primary cause for conviction is physical evidence and testimony got it overturned. I dare you.

No not everyone... a number of people are just throwing out insults and vague accusations out.  

However I did explain why it was cherry picking and the issue of anecdotal evidence in this context.   If you don't understand...just ask.   If you think my reasoning is wrong... please share why, and if you are reduced to just insults and a incredulous stare, then perhaps you may want to take some time to re-think things.

The following explains how exculpatory evidence may be direct or circumstantial evidence.  [RotLaw]

Exculpatory evidence comes in a number of different forms.  It may be testimony from a witness who states that she saw someone other than the defendant commit the crime or that the defendant was with the witness when the crime occurred.  It may be real evidence or an object from the crime scene, such as fingerprints lifted from a weapon that don’t match the defendant’s fingerprints.  It may be security video footage that shows whoever committed the crime doesn’t match the description of the defendant.  Exculpatory evidence may be real or documentary, direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, testimony or a physical exhibit presented in court.  If it tends to show the defendant might not be guilty of the crime, it is “exculpatory.”

Do you not think that a new witness coming forward could overturn previous evidence in a case?
Further I don't believe that it is right thinking to say that because a certain type of evidence was overturned by another type of evidence that the former is not evidence.  Do you come to the same conclusions when one type of physical evidence overturns cases involving another type of physical evidence.  DNA evidence is relatively new, and in the news a lot (especially for this type of thing).  However we are also finding out that it too is fallible.

How about the following scenario (this also demonstrates an earlier point to Benny)

A man is found by the police standing overtop of a victim The victom has a knife stuck in his chest, and it is found that then man's found standing over him has his DNA on the murder weapon, as well, as the victims blood all over him.  The man swears that he did not kill the person.

Do you convict the man?

What if I add a little more  information to facts of the case:

---

The man standing over him was an off duty paramedic.  And an independent witness reports him trying to save the victim.

Now what if this witness doesn't come forward until after the man is convicted and in prison.   Would you release him, based on this testimony?

---

[The Grand Nudger]

If, in addition to your own claim, another patron says he saw you wiping ketchup from your mouth and if the waitress tells me she served you a cheeseburger, and a bystander says you entered the diner and left a short while later, THEN I would be more likely to believe your testimony, in light of their additional testimony, and accept that evidently you did in fact eat a cheeseburger.

If it wasn't evident the first time the story was told, what makes it evident the third time?  OFC, what you're referring to now isn't testimonial "evidence" but the exterior phenomena of many people arriving at the same story...which, itself, would be extraordinarily poor evidence.

(Can someone 'had' a cheeseburger and 'ate' it too? I guess that's entirely possible using the past tense. Personally, I'm a Chicago-style red hot eater myself, preferably with sport peppers, home-cut fries, and a pint from Half-Acre brewing company.)

You can add or subtract anything you like, it won't change what is or is not evident on the basis of the testimony. I personally prefer the Pale Horse Brewing Company of Kentucky.......you know...if such a thing exists.  I suppose maybe it becomes evident if I pay two out of three dentists to tell you that they, too...prefer said brewing company...or? What do you think, is it evident that Crest os better than Colgate, or is that vv...I can never remember...which one do two out of three dentists recommend?

Word fail, Neo, word fail......but another wonderful example of someone seeking trivial semantic equivalence, so thanks for that, I guess.

[Minimalist]

What does my following testimony make evident?

-I had a cheeseburger for lunch.

If, in addition to your own claim, another patron says he saw you wiping ketchup from your mouth and if the waitress tells me she served you a cheeseburger, and a bystander says you entered the diner and left a short while later, THEN I would be more likely to believe your testimony, in light of their additional testimony, and accept that evidently you did in fact eat a cheeseburger.

So you DO understand the need for corroborating evidence.  Why then can you not see that your holy horseshit has none?

[The Grand Nudger]

-and there's the crux of it, testimony..at it's absolute best... is a hanging claim.  A story, floated.   What we corroborate testimony with, however, is the evidence which lends credence to the claim.

No amount of arguing will change that relationship.  Such is simply the nature of testimony as compared and related to evidence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

-and there's the crux of it, testimony..at it's absolute best... is a hanging claim.  A story, floated.   What we corroborate testimony with, however, is the evidence which lends credence to the claim.

No amount of arguing will change that relationship.  Such is simply the nature of testimony as compared and related to evidence.

By your logic then it would be impossible to have evidence that a given medicine gives pain relief since it is only supported by the testimony of the test subjects. Massive fail on your part.

[The Grand Nudger]

That wouldn't be any logic of mine, and I'd weep for medicine if it relied on testimonials.  I think that what you're trying to refer to here would be quack treatment.  I can see how you'd mistake one for the other.......you're the kind of guy that would argue for exorcism as a treatment for epilepsy.

"Goji Berries cured my cancer and found my wallet, plus, my penis is at least an inch longer than it was yesterday!"

Try again.