(August 5, 2017 at 12:18 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The amount of pages you've wasted tryng to maintan the credibility of testimony when the very standard you're referring to absolutely does -not- accept testimony in a vacuum as sufficient to convict is staggering.
You mean the amount of pages I spent trying to ascertain peoples opinions on the credibility of testimony and it's value as evidence towards a conviction.
if by saying the standard I'm referring to (meaning my claim about here in the U.S.) "absolutely does not accept testimony in a vaccum", Thanks for your opinion. Here is some expert opinion?
See: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-o...24282.html
And: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-i...17488.html
However this is different from the question or discussion about if this should be the case (or should be changed). And again, I'm mostly just interested in learning about my fellow posters here at AF.org Not really a debate, but I'm learning a lot.
And whether evidence is accepted by a jury or is sufficient to convict is also another matter.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther