Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

I'm going to address this point because it seems to really be bugging you:
I do not know, and never have claimed to know, that my beliefs are 100% trustworthy. In point of fact, I showed they can't always be trusted. That is why I read extensively, both fiction and non-fiction. It's why I read articles that both agree and disagree with my held beliefs. It's why I question even the beliefs I hold as axioms. Can you say the same? Do you question your likely axiomatically held christian beliefs? I relish the opportunity to be proven wrong as well as being proven right because both help me to maintain the most truthful beliefs and positions I can.

As you say, cherry picking doesn't make your case:
Eye witness testimony isn't usually obtained "right after the event took place." It can take hours, days, weeks, even months for witnesses to be found. Further, you're cherry picking of new, not yet perfected technologies and mixed DNA samples undermines your argument more than it supports it. The wonderful thing about DNA testing (and any type of physical testing) is that it can be repeated, by different techs, in different labs at different times, even months, or in extreme cases, years later, by procedures that produce even more reliable results. Testimony (for a variety of reasons) gets more and more unreliable as it ages and cannot be tested (only corroborated). Physical evidence, unless tampered with, doesn't change. Current tests get improved, new tests are developed and the physical evidence is still there, still testable. Testimony can and does change, without any outside tampering. And, speaking of tampering. You've actually used evidence tampering as a reason for you argument in favor of testimony. I do hope you realize that evidence tampering is really no different than giving false testimony. We have to, to a degree, rely on the honesty of the people involved. Unfortunately for your argument, evidence tampering is easier to prove. Tampering with evidence leaves evidence of the tampering. Lying under oath, not so much.


Whether they're mistaken, lying, utterly honest or bat-shit crazy, if their testimony fits with the alleged case then it's demonstrating the proposition. If it demonstrates it convincingly, even if it's untrue, the prosecution (or defense) will use it, juries will hear it and convictions (or acquittals) will be handed out.

I'm calling bullshit on this statement. Anyone who believes someone justice can be served when a conviction on a serious charge has been handed down on the basis of testimony alone has dismissed the value of physical evidence.

Now that I've addressed the key points, I'll address one that you just can't seem to get, even though I have clearly stated it more than once.
I hold the opinion that testimony is only useful as, and should be limited in use and scope as, corroborating evidence. In no uncertain terms, I hold the opinion that no one facing a charge where the sentence would be a Prison (not to be confused with jail) term regardless of severity or in capital cases. You have, quite rightly, shown that physical evidence can be erroneous. What you have not shown is that testimony is as reliable as physical evidence, especially over time. Nor have you shown that errors in physical evidence testing cannot be corrected at a later, sometimes much later date or that errors in testimony can be corrected by further testimony. I hold that it is self evident that the shortcomings of testimony, as have been repeatedly demonstrated to you (no, I'm not going to list them all, again), should prohibit it's use as anything other than corroborating evidence. If the state can't build a case on physical evidence, they should postpone indictment until they can. If they can never build a case on physical evidence... Well, sucks to be them.

You're actually arguing to maintain the status quo in a world moving farther and farther from the time when "the testimony of two reliable witnesses shall be sufficient to convict" in a case of treason and toward a time where testimony will be insufficient to convict on any serious crime. The courts are seeing it, the lawyers are seeing it, the forensic pathologists are seeing it jurors are starting to see it, but you're not. Yeah, I call that emotional investment.

---

You forgot to mention he's shitting all over other evidence, so he's clearly bullshitting for that reason too. And he's constantly avoiding the fact that I've pointed out myriad legitimate reasons why testimony should be either disregarded as evidence or the worst sort of evidence and he seems to conveniently ignore it or dismiss it every time. Trying to prove an assertion with an assertion makes no sense. Testimony that has evidence to back it up is basically nothing more than another claim that needs to be proven. If it helps to bolster another claim, it's the evidence doing that, not the complementary claim.
Can you sum up your "myriad of legitimate reasons why testimony should be either disregarded as evidence or the worst sort of evidence "? So I can properly address them.

---

But ... but ... it's testimony! It's evidence!

Just because you reject it doesn't reduce its probative value -- especially when it can be backed up with, ahem, evidence. And let's face it: there is plenty of evidence that testimony is the weakest form of evidence in those cases where it has any value at all.

RR: "yeah well, all you provided as evidence for your claim that witness testimony is unreliable is sources from experts!"


The irony of RR rejecting the expert testimony regarding facts about testimony is just...


And his reasoning is...he didn't like the titles, lol.

I don't reject the studies or the expert testimony.  And to my knowledge, very few of them are putting forth the argument here and calling to remove testimony all together as evidence.  I reject the conclusion proposed by many here, about the testimony. 

And no... I don't think that titles of the article override the content and substance of the article.  I don't think that you should base your conclusion on the title.   Or are you also against DNA evidence, because of articles with similar titles.