Witness Evidence

[Esquilax]

So you don't believe the science when your own memories are concerned, and are willing to act on them then I see.

Well, according to your own argument, that science was done and filtered through the lens of the scientist's senses, and recounted from memory, making it so completely unreliable to you that you shouldn't believe it yourself, so what's the problem?

 If I found myself on trial and knew the testimony of others was mistaken, then I would want any strong evidence I could provide, that places me somewhere else or opposes the other evidence.   This would include good witness testimony.  How about you?  Would witnesses be good evidence you where not guilty, if you where found falsely accused?  I can confidently say, that I don't think I would want you lot on my jury.

You're equivocating. The issue isn't witness testimony, it's testimony considered within the context surrounding it. Witnesses on their own tell you, at best, what that witness believes, and at worst, what they're attempting to lie about. This is not great evidence in an objective sense, so what you do is, you take those statements and you check them against the known facts of the situation. You do know that perjury exists, right? Witness testimony isn't automatically believed in a courtroom, it is verified against that which is known about the case, and falsehoods are both acknowledged and accounted for within the legal system.

You say you wouldn't want us on the jury if you were falsely accused of a crime, but I think you would because the exact same argument you've made there can be used in reverse to convict you, if courts worked the way you seem to want them to. If you can have good witness testimony that can be automatically believed in order to exonerate you, then equally, you could have deceptive witness testimony manufactured for the purposes of convicting you, rather than for the purposes of properly reflecting the events of the crime. In both cases, what you'd want is a jury that is willing to filter testimony for the truth, and render their judgment based on that, rather than "so and so said so." You'd want a jury that'll accept the evidence, no matter how many people come out and baselessly assert that you done did the crime.