Testimony is Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

[hide]

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.

---

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.

I was merely repeating what you, yourself, stated.

Here is my summary of the case you have made so far.
Pointed to websites or experts which state or have the title Witness testimony is unreliable...

Why would you bring it up if you didn't take some kind of issue with it?