Testimony is Evidence

[Ravenshire]

I find it truly fucking amazing that RR has castigated us for providing allegory and cherry picking as our only evidence (despite that claim being bullshit) then finally, after mumerous, repeated requests, gives us a link to his evidence. A blog full of opinion and speculation. Allegory in its purest form. No evidence of testimony overturning physical evidence or testimony overturning any convictions where the physical evidence was the primary reason for the conviction. No, we get a blog with a bunch of "what ifs" and were expected to swallow the bullshit.

Fortunately, the courts are, more and more, seeing that testimony is piss poor evidence in and of itself and moving further away from the days of two reliable witnesses.

RR, if you want to try again, this time with actual evidence (not more hypocrisy via allegory), I'll be more than willing to look. Until then, four fucking threads of "look, testimony evidence is soooooo fucking the same as physical evidence" is more than enough for me.

According the the author, most of these are based on real stories.  And even if they are not, the reasoning still holds the same.

Also, you are mistaken, this was posted in response to claims, that testimony is not evidence, or it is so weak as to be useless on it's own.  I wasn't disputing them for the individual cases, and I assume that many where correct in their conclusions (regarding DNA overturning previous cases).  My criticism was directed at trying to make an overall generalization based on cherry picking and anecdotal evidence (which is incorrect).  If I was making an absolute claim, then this would be correct to counter it.  However I am not.  And I'm not saying that testimonial evidence always trumps DNA evidence (alhtough it sometimes can).  That is all that I am putting forth.  No hypocrisy here.

And if don't want to discuss and think about the ideas presented, but are more interested in rhetoric; then I welcome your leaving of the discussion. You may want to note however, that this is largely a philosophical discussion.  It's not about evidence or really any evidence is testimony.   However it is about the reasoning, for why the view of testimony as evidence should be changed, or should not be considered evidence.

RR, what is so fucking difficult about presenting evidence for your claim? You bitch and moan, again, about how we only present allegory or are cherry picking and yet, the only "evidence" you've give is support of your case is most definitely allegorical. Show us where testimony has overturned convictions based on physical evidence. Demonstrate how testimony can truly be trustworthy in the absence of physical evidence given all we know about both the limitations of memory and the limitations of observational ability under stress.

Show us the money.