Testimony is Evidence

[Ravenshire]

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?

---

I am not going to chase the red herring, so sorry. I will have to play your semantics game, albeit briefly, though I won't again. We both know what these terms mean and you're stretching one past the breaking point and mis-applying the other. The evidence I've shown is not anecdotal because they are not evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. These are actual cases and can be researched.

I haven't been cherry picking since I've not been finding cases in favor of my argument and ignoring cases against. Hell, I've not been able to find cases where additional testimony has overturned a conviction for so much as a parking ticket. Physical evidence has. If you could perhaps show us some cases instead of tossing yet another red herring?

I have repeatedly stated that testimony is weak as a form of evidence, but is certainly useful to corroborate physical evidence. You're claim, at least as far as you've made clear, is that testimony is evidence just as good as physical evidence. I've presented my case and you've presented logical arguments and red herrings. All the information I've been able to find supports the idea that physical evidence trumps testimony every time they clash. Have you got some evidence to the contrary? Now would be the time to present it.

[Minimalist]

-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.

Some people swear by Tylenol.  The shit does nothing for me.  So, yeah.  There I would agree with you.  Hell, there are people who insist that acupuncture works, too.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

I see that you insist on doubling down on stupid. The only way to quantify a qualitative effect is by compiling multiple qualitative reports, i.e. testimonials. That's the only way to know if various treatments work for certain types of illnesses like chronic pain and depression.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's a place for subjective experience in evidentiary proceedings. The issue is, where is that place?

That place, my friends, is low on the totem pole. To use Wooters's point about pain, does that explain placebo? I might feel better because Mom gave me chicken soup when I had a cold, but did that counteract the cold? Did it reduce the pain?

The subjectivity of testimony is exactly what lends it unreliability.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That place, my friends, is low on the totem pole. To use Wooters's point about pain, does that explain placebo?

Yes. It has been proven time and time again that placebos work and can indeed be used as an effective treatment even if the patient knows he is taking a placebo! It is not the actual ingredients; but rather manner of their presentation that has an effect.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is this honestly what you think that medical treatments, of any kind, are based on.  That "It worked for me" satisfies the fda?  That a surgeon will cut into someone, because he's been assured that the anesthesiologist has collected a pile of testimonials....

[Thumpalumpacus]

That place, my friends, is low on the totem pole. To use Wooters's point about pain, does that explain placebo?

Yes. It has been proven time and time again that placebos work and can indeed be used as an effective treatment even if the patient knows he is taking a placebo! It is not the actual ingredients; but rather manner of their presentation that has an effect.

And what placebo, Chad, is it that you take? Do the "actual ingredients" matter?

I think you just admitted a fatal subjectivity. Have a nice evening.

[Joods]

They say there's three sides to an argument. Yours, mine and the truth.

[Anomalocaris]

They say there's three sides to an argument. Yours, mine and the truth.

My side is the right one. So obviously you and truth must both be wrong.

[Joods]

They say there's three sides to an argument. Yours, mine and the truth.

My side is the right one.  So obviously you and truth must both be wrong.

Have any evidence to back that up?