Sae,
I guarantee that if there was hard evidence that contradicted what the witness said, the testimony would be thrown out. A court is NOT a laboratory and a court proceeding is NOT an experiment. What passes for evidence in a court does not define what passes for evidence everywhere else.
You must consider the topics in any possible court case to understand why personal testimony works as evidence. It only relates to natural physical entities like gun, knife, person, time of day, ya know, basically objectively provable things so there is no need for scientific evidence. If a witness ever brought testimony that they were remote viewing a scene of a crime, their testimony would be thrown out because remote viewing is not considered believable.
Rhizo
I guarantee that if there was hard evidence that contradicted what the witness said, the testimony would be thrown out. A court is NOT a laboratory and a court proceeding is NOT an experiment. What passes for evidence in a court does not define what passes for evidence everywhere else.
You must consider the topics in any possible court case to understand why personal testimony works as evidence. It only relates to natural physical entities like gun, knife, person, time of day, ya know, basically objectively provable things so there is no need for scientific evidence. If a witness ever brought testimony that they were remote viewing a scene of a crime, their testimony would be thrown out because remote viewing is not considered believable.
Rhizo
