Evidence to Convict?

[Astonished]

Now as to being objective... I don't know about that.   I think this is why we have multiple juror's in a trial, and they must be in agreement.  If it's a matter of objectivity, then we wouldn't have jurors at all, but just feed the data into an equation or spreadsheet, and tabulate the results.  That would scare the hell out of me. 

However we do live in a society where testimony alone is enough to convict (as I mentioned previously  a case by J. Warner Wallace).  And I don't think that is a problem.  As long as we test our witnesses. It's important still to have multiple independent lines of evidence, what they have to say and contribute to the information about the case and are aware of the limits and shortcomings of the evidence.  A number of testimonies, can give us much more information from which to base a reasoned conclusion, than an equal number of other forms of evidence.

---

Thank you. Please walk me through what I posted that makes you think so, so I can understand my error.

Looking back, it appears, that it was mostly just the argument that others be able to change the scenario, for which some where trying to bring in physical evidence to avoid the question of testimony.  I apologize.    And as I had told you before, I do agree, that there are going to be details about the testimony and people themselves, that I wasn't going to get into in a post.  Assumption that the testimony was good where to be made, for the sake of brevity. 

In that regard, I don't think that I was making constant large changes to the scenario, as some seem to imply either.   Mostly the clarification for the above.  Would you agree?

I don't see how you can say that with a straight face if you say Twelve Angry Men is one of your favorite movies. It's also a hallmark of theism to mistrust machinery so it's no surprise you'd be less fearful of human jurors than a program that could calculate odds on an algorithm, if, since you like hypotheticals so much, that would be far more objective than humans can be and should be sophisticated enough to be free of errors.

And no, sorry, you're wrong (about the same thing you keep failing to understand). Testimony cannot do what you're claiming. It can support other evidence and nothing more substantial. It is too unreliable to take at face value on its own. Case in point, your repeated and continued lack of ability or willingness to grasp this objective fact.