RE: Evidence to Convict?
August 3, 2017 at 1:04 am
(This post was last modified: August 3, 2017 at 2:04 am by 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?
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?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
