Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

So the author claims there true therefore there true? . And no the logic does not hold the same. Present real cases or shut the hell up.

Yes that is how logic works! Perhaps that should be the next discussion.

---

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.

I did cite evidence Here and Here from a number of lawyers who say that testimony is evidence, and can be enough to convict someone in court alone.  It can be exculpatory evidence [Wiki]  I also explained in the last post (which you quoted) why anecdotal evidence isn't correct for the case you are trying to make, or the pertinent to the case that I am making.  

I don't understand where this criteria that testimony had to overturn convictions based on physical evidence comes from (it seems ad hoc to me).  Perhaps you can explain your reasoning here.  I'd be willing to bet, that there are cases, where a witness emerged after the conviction or a confession was made, in which someone convicted based on physical evidence was released.  But I don't have access to law libraries, and it doesn't seem to show up on a search.  However I still have the question of what does it matter if the exculpatory evidence comes up during the trial, or after they are convicted?

As to witness testimony being trustworthy.  I depend on my observations as evidence for nearly everything. I troubleshoot machines for a living, and rely both on what I observe, and what others have seen quite extensively. Yes there can be mistakes, but I find it to be generally reliable.  If your perception of the world is so flawed as to not be accurate enough to use it as facts and information in order to form a belief, then why would I listen to your assessment in this matter?