Testimony is Evidence

[Ravenshire]

---

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.

The question isn't about absolute certainty.  Just the same reasonable certainty, that you require from evidence.  And yes, I can say the same that I question my beliefs, which is why I create threads like this (although I'm sure a number of people will come about and call me a liar).

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.

What I mean, is that if there is reason to believe that they are lying or mistaken, then it doesn't demonstrate their case is true

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.

---

I don't know of any studies that done specifically for the reliability of testimony (although while I don't have the means, I could think of a few examples).   But by looking at the numbers, 351 people have been exonerated by the innocence project the first in 1989[IP] . it is my understanding, that the majority of these are rape and murder charges.  The prison system holds about 169,000 people each for these offenses[2016 Statistics ]  This is what I mean by cherry picking or more correctly anecdotal evidence (in the proper sense).  When someone wants to make a make a case against witness testimony, they often will bring up Jim Bob who was wrongfully convicted, and later released.  However this doesn't tell the whole story.  It can be true, that Jim Bob was wrongfully imprisoned, as well as a number of other people if one does a google search on the topic.  However, the results of your google search only means that it is news, and what people are talking about.  As unfortunate and saddening that it is, that these people where wrongfully convicted a number of which on the basis of testimony.  It doesn't show that testimony is unreliable  For that you would need to know how many of these people currently imprisoned where judged primarily on a basis of testimony as the main anchor for the conviction.   Now if it is 500 of and 351 where wrongfully accused base on testimony, then you certainly have a case.  If it is 25% of the 2016 population (referenced above)  of inmates found guilty based on testimony with 351 shown to be innocent, then I think your case is weakened quite a bit. (I wasn't able to find any reference to convictions with this data and what the primary cause for conviction was) You also have to take into consideration the error that was made.  Now of this number, being  a fraction of the total as it is, those attributed to witness testimony, is a large proportion of the wrongful convictions.  However, if you look closer, a large proportion of this, deals with mis-identification.   If your remove witness identification from this number, (remember, I am very much for the reforms in regard to mis-identification), then the topic of witness testimony, falls in line, with of forensic science errors, authority misconduct, and false confessions.  And stories are just now coming to light, on how DNA evidence is perhaps not as reliable as we assumed. 

So perhaps I am holding on to the "status quo", and I'm not saying that we don't need to be wary or make reforms.  However my experience in business and with politics, is that in such cases, people also tend to over-react, and often not for the better. There are certain issues with memory, and it is not perfect.  And people can lie.   However I believe that through corroborating evidence, that we can mitigate the lies, and that for the most part peoples perception of reality and even their memory of it is generally reliable and useful as evidence.

Wow, I'm not even going to try to clean up the hash you made of that.

First, you claim I'm cherry picking by posting the available data. Not my fault that the data isn't complete enough for you. After all, what would be enough for you.
Second, you either didn't see or are ignoring the point I made about the convictions overturned. None were overturned due to new testimony. The overwhelming majority were, gotta love this part, especially since it's exactly what you were bitching that I wasn't giving you, convicted on bad, wrong or just plain false testimony and were overturned by the introduction of new physical evidence.

Care to comment on that? After all, it's the testimony sending these poor bastards down the river and the real evidence that's exonerating them.