Testimony is Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

This is what the American Bar Association has to say on the subject:

https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/...iable.html

[Astonished]

P.S. If it was evidence it would stand on it's own at least as weak evidence.

Does it not stand on it's own, because it is not evidence?   This seems a bit circular to me.

Any how, I posted a lawyers Q&A page.   The overwhelming consensus was that given good testimony, that it can stand on it's own.

I already explained what is circular, you false-equivocating wretch, which is to use testimony to verify other testimony in the absence of all other evidence. Once evidence enters the equation, testimony is the gum stuck to the bottom of someone's shoe; it's there, but it's either unimportant or unhelpful and annoying.

Good testimony (in other words, a valid assertion) is only able to be verified as such if the evidence actually works with it, otherwise there's no way of knowing, so that's a completely nonsensical statement you're making. Saying it stands its own in the absence of any evidence is something that should get someone disbarred because that's inexcusably stupid for an attorney to not to understand, let alone your average Joe godcocksucker on the street. It's a paradox because you can't say whether testimony is good without corroborating evidence so the very idea that it can stand on its own is ludicrous and demonstrates that, as I've pointed out repeatedly, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

[RoadRunner79]

This is what the American Bar Association has to say on the subject:

https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/...iable.html

I had seen that.... it mostly deals with witness identification, which I agree with the reforms being proposed.

---

Does it not stand on it's own, because it is not evidence?   This seems a bit circular to me.

Any how, I posted a lawyers Q&A page.   The overwhelming consensus was that given good testimony, that it can stand on it's own.

I already explained what is circular, you false-equivocating wretch, which is to use testimony to verify other testimony in the absence of all other evidence. Once evidence enters the equation, testimony is the gum stuck to the bottom of someone's shoe; it's there, but it's either unimportant or unhelpful and annoying.

Good testimony (in other words, a valid assertion) is only able to be verified as such if the evidence actually works with it, otherwise there's no way of knowing, so that's a completely nonsensical statement you're making. Saying it stands its own in the absence of any evidence is something that should get someone disbarred because that's inexcusably stupid for an attorney to not to understand, let alone your average Joe godcocksucker on the street. It's a paradox because you can't say whether testimony is good without corroborating evidence so the very idea that it can stand on its own is ludicrous and demonstrates that, as I've pointed out repeatedly, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

When I removed the insults and repeating your claim from the post, there is not much left to work with.   Perhaps you should try again!

[Astonished]

This is what the American Bar Association has to say on the subject:

https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/...iable.html

I had seen that.... it mostly deals with witness identification, which I agree with the reforms being proposed.

---

I already explained what is circular, you false-equivocating wretch, which is to use testimony to verify other testimony in the absence of all other evidence. Once evidence enters the equation, testimony is the gum stuck to the bottom of someone's shoe; it's there, but it's either unimportant or unhelpful and annoying.

Good testimony (in other words, a valid assertion) is only able to be verified as such if the evidence actually works with it, otherwise there's no way of knowing, so that's a completely nonsensical statement you're making. Saying it stands its own in the absence of any evidence is something that should get someone disbarred because that's inexcusably stupid for an attorney to not to understand, let alone your average Joe godcocksucker on the street. It's a paradox because you can't say whether testimony is good without corroborating evidence so the very idea that it can stand on its own is ludicrous and demonstrates that, as I've pointed out repeatedly, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

When I removed the insults and repeating your claim from the post, there is not much left to work with.   Perhaps you should try again!

There's nothing to remove from any of your posts since there's no substance to them in the first place. Try going back to kindygarden and learning to fucking read, twat.

[Ravenshire]

I find it truly fucking amazing that RR has castigated us for providing allegory and cherry picking as our only evidence (despite that claim being bullshit) then finally, after mumerous, repeated requests, gives us a link to his evidence. A blog full of opinion and speculation. Allegory in its purest form. No evidence of testimony overturning physical evidence or testimony overturning any convictions where the physical evidence was the primary reason for the conviction. No, we get a blog with a bunch of "what ifs" and were expected to swallow the bullshit.

Fortunately, the courts are, more and more, seeing that testimony is piss poor evidence in and of itself and moving further away from the days of two reliable witnesses.

RR, if you want to try again, this time with actual evidence (not more hypocrisy via allegory), I'll be more than willing to look. Until then, four fucking threads of "look, testimony evidence is soooooo fucking the same as physical evidence" is more than enough for me.

According the the author, most of these are based on real stories.  And even if they are not, the reasoning still holds the same.

Also, you are mistaken, this was posted in response to claims, that testimony is not evidence, or it is so weak as to be useless on it's own.  I wasn't disputing them for the individual cases, and I assume that many where correct in their conclusions (regarding DNA overturning previous cases).  My criticism was directed at trying to make an overall generalization based on cherry picking and anecdotal evidence (which is incorrect).  If I was making an absolute claim, then this would be correct to counter it.  However I am not.  And I'm not saying that testimonial evidence always trumps DNA evidence (alhtough it sometimes can).  That is all that I am putting forth.  No hypocrisy here.

And if don't want to discuss and think about the ideas presented, but are more interested in rhetoric; then I welcome your leaving of the discussion. You may want to note however, that this is largely a philosophical discussion.  It's not about evidence or really any evidence is testimony.   However it is about the reasoning, for why the view of testimony as evidence should be changed, or should not be considered evidence.

RR, what is so fucking difficult about presenting evidence for your claim? You bitch and moan, again, about how we only present allegory or are cherry picking and yet, the only "evidence" you've give is support of your case is most definitely allegorical. Show us where testimony has overturned convictions based on physical evidence. Demonstrate how testimony can truly be trustworthy in the absence of physical evidence given all we know about both the limitations of memory and the limitations of observational ability under stress.

Show us the money.

[Amarok]

So the author claims there true therefore there true? . And no the logic does not hold the same. Present real cases or shut the hell up.

[Astonished]

So the author claims there true therefore there true? . And no the logic does not hold the same. Present real cases or shut the hell up.

That's all I'm sayin'. An assertion is not proof of another assertion, it's the thing that demands evidence to verify its own veracity. All forms of testimony should be suspect and subject to scrutiny if they're not of the most utterly mundane nature like how long I spent on the toilet this morning, and testimony that claims something that we understand to be physically impossible or entirely absurd, even more so. So not only is it insufficient to be considered proof in ordinary matters, to go above and beyond the ordinary is correspondingly ludicrous.

[RoadRunner79]

So the author claims there true therefore there true? . And no the logic does not hold the same. Present real cases or shut the hell up.

Yes that is how logic works! Perhaps that should be the next discussion.

---

According the the author, most of these are based on real stories.  And even if they are not, the reasoning still holds the same.

Also, you are mistaken, this was posted in response to claims, that testimony is not evidence, or it is so weak as to be useless on it's own.  I wasn't disputing them for the individual cases, and I assume that many where correct in their conclusions (regarding DNA overturning previous cases).  My criticism was directed at trying to make an overall generalization based on cherry picking and anecdotal evidence (which is incorrect).  If I was making an absolute claim, then this would be correct to counter it.  However I am not.  And I'm not saying that testimonial evidence always trumps DNA evidence (alhtough it sometimes can).  That is all that I am putting forth.  No hypocrisy here.

And if don't want to discuss and think about the ideas presented, but are more interested in rhetoric; then I welcome your leaving of the discussion. You may want to note however, that this is largely a philosophical discussion.  It's not about evidence or really any evidence is testimony.   However it is about the reasoning, for why the view of testimony as evidence should be changed, or should not be considered evidence.

RR, what is so fucking difficult about presenting evidence for your claim? You bitch and moan, again, about how we only present allegory or are cherry picking and yet, the only "evidence" you've give is support of your case is most definitely allegorical. Show us where testimony has overturned convictions based on physical evidence. Demonstrate how testimony can truly be trustworthy in the absence of physical evidence given all we know about both the limitations of memory and the limitations of observational ability under stress.

Show us the money.

I did cite evidence Here and Here from a number of lawyers who say that testimony is evidence, and can be enough to convict someone in court alone.  It can be exculpatory evidence [Wiki]  I also explained in the last post (which you quoted) why anecdotal evidence isn't correct for the case you are trying to make, or the pertinent to the case that I am making.  

I don't understand where this criteria that testimony had to overturn convictions based on physical evidence comes from (it seems ad hoc to me).  Perhaps you can explain your reasoning here.  I'd be willing to bet, that there are cases, where a witness emerged after the conviction or a confession was made, in which someone convicted based on physical evidence was released.  But I don't have access to law libraries, and it doesn't seem to show up on a search.  However I still have the question of what does it matter if the exculpatory evidence comes up during the trial, or after they are convicted?

As to witness testimony being trustworthy.  I depend on my observations as evidence for nearly everything. I troubleshoot machines for a living, and rely both on what I observe, and what others have seen quite extensively. Yes there can be mistakes, but I find it to be generally reliable.  If your perception of the world is so flawed as to not be accurate enough to use it as facts and information in order to form a belief, then why would I listen to your assessment in this matter?

[RoadRunner79]

Another interesting topic I found while researching for this thread was about what is known as the CSI effect. This is a hypothesis among those in the justice system is that popular crime tv dramas are creating an unrealistic expectation of forensic evidence in courtrooms.  Now there is some dispute about the role of these television shows, and the effect that is being perceived by judicial servants.  But, my interest here is not in the cause, but the results. 

Yale Law Journal

For example, after the recent, well-publicized acquittal of Robert Blake,jurors complained about the lack of fingerprints, DNA, and gunshot residue—evidence not often available in criminal trials but frequently used on television.Similarly, an article inUSA Todaylinked the acquittal of Robert Durst, whowas accused of murdering and dismembering a neighbor, to the CSI effect: “To legal analysts, his case seemed an example of how shows such as CSI are affecting action in courthouses across the USA by, among other things, raising jurors’ expectations of what prosecutors should produce at trial.

Boston Globe

A 2006 survey of more than 1,000 Michigan jurors found that nearly half of the jurors expected to see some sort of scientific evidence in every criminal trial. Nearly 75 percent expected to see scientific evidence presented in murder trials. And still another study, published just this year, found that people trusted such evidence almost blindly. In this study, a random sample of 1,201 potential jurors in California said they considered scientific evidence, like DNA and fingerprints, to be far more reliable than the testimony of police officers, eyewitnesses, or even the victims themselves.

Prosecutors call it the CSI effect, suggesting that fictional television shows, like the long-running “CSI,” helped convince science-wary Americans to believe in the power of forensics. But the facts haven’t hurt, either. At trial, when possible, prosecutors are always keen on

calling forensic experts to testify — even when no forensic evidence has been found. Failure to do so, prosecutors say, would almost surely sink their chances of winning a conviction.

A study, reviewing 400 murder cases in five jurisdictions, found that the presence of forensic evidence had very little impact on whether an arrest would be made, charges would be filed, or a conviction would be handed down in court.

A mere 13.5 percent of the murder cases reviewed actually had physical evidence that linked the suspect to the crime scene or victim. The conviction rate in those cases was only slightly higher than the rate among all other cases in the sample. And for the most part, the hard, scientific evidence celebrated by crime dramas simply did not surface. According to the research, investigators found some kind of biological evidence 38 percent of the time, latent fingerprints 28 percent of the time, and DNA in just 4.5 percent of homicides.

The new research, to be published in the Journal of Criminal Justice, comes at a time when forensic science is already under siege, with some questioning whether certain forensic practices are even that scientific. The National Academy of Sciences authored a report last year questioning the reliability of many forensic methods, deploring the lack of standardization and certification within the trade, and calling for sweeping reforms. The report, which gave voice to concerns that many forensic scientists had been whispering for years, reached the White House, where President Obama directed a subcommittee on forensic science to study the suddenly prickly matter.

“I can name, off the top of my head, a dozen cases that were practically solved exclusively through forensic evidence,” said Patrick Haggan, chief trial counsel for the Suffolk County district attorney’s office. “It was the main — if not the only — evidence presented to the jury.”
Undeniably, Haggan is right. Across the country, there are many examples where the discovery of DNA, or other scientific evidence, cracked a case that had long gone cold. Just last month in Suffolk Superior Court, prosecutors won a murder conviction in a case that had gone unsolved for 26 years, thanks to DNA that finally linked a career criminal to the rape and murder of an 18-year-old woman.
But Baskin and Sommers say that forensic evidence, while compelling, isn’t nearly as important to a murder case as other factors. Analyzing 400 murder cases committed in 2003 in California’s Los Angeles County, Indianapolis, and three smaller Indiana cities, the researchers found that cases were more likely to end up in court if witnesses came forward or if the victim and the suspect knew each other. Such factors made cases easier to solve and, apparently, easier to prosecute, according to the research, while, on the other hand, forensic evidence was “not a significant factor.”

However, both police and prosecutors acknowledge that there is some truth in the new findings. DNA evidence in homicide cases can be hard to come by, they acknowledge, especially in gang-related incidents, drive-by shootings, and cases where victims were randomly targeted. In Fresno, Calif., this year, police have investigated 38 murders, but found DNA in just four, according to Captain Dennis Bridges, commander of the Fresno Police Department’s violent crime bureau. And even if they had DNA evidence in more cases, Bridges added, detectives wouldn’t know that for days, maybe weeks, after the crime. What matters in the immediate aftermath of a murder, he said, is finding eyewitnesses — just as the new research concludes.

This hasn't been studied much, and there are some indications that the plot twists found in TV dramas may make jurors more astute in assessing the evidence, and not making assumptions.  However the observation by lawyers and feeling the need to order unnecessary tests or expert testimony to tell why there was no physical evidence is intereseting; and, reminded me of these conversations here.

[Astonished]

This should be nothing less than an absolute nuclear bomb of fuckery to any outside observer. If that's true, we are a sorrier fucking species than I thought. And I already have a very low opinion of humanity as a whole.