Evidence to Convict?

[Amarok]

And anyway, the poll itself is a false dichotomy.  Yes, the testimony IS evidence but it may not be ENOUGH evidence, by itself, to land you a conviction.  Hence the statement:  "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  If eye witness testimony from 11 people isn't even necessarily a slam dunk for the prosecution in a run-of-the mill assault case, then what grade of evidence should we be demanding for claims of the messiah?  

Hint: More eyewitnesses does not necessarily equal a higher likelihood that the claim is true.

---

Let me ask you this, RR:

What if we found a document dated 15 years ago that describes testimony from 11 anonymous people (we don't know anything about them other than their first names, and we have no way of tracking them down to conduct interviews) who claimed you hit a man in the head with a chair in 2002.  The alleged victim is also not available for interview as he has since passed away.  Should you be charged with this alleged crime?  Should you be convicted based on the testimony described in my document?

Add to that the claim he hit him with a chair by screaming booty luscious and the chair levitated then struck him. I ask do you think any judge would buy that or are they also begging the question?

As for the gospels they have already tried this court room bullshit and it's been thoroughly debunked. You can't treat the bible as a court narrative. Any more then you can treat biblical studies as proper history because it isn't.

---

And anyway, the poll itself is a false dichotomy.  Yes, the testimony IS evidence but it may not be ENOUGH evidence, by itself, to land you a conviction.  Hence the statement:  "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  If eye witness testimony from 11 people isn't even necessarily a slam dunk for the prosecution in a run-of-the mill assault case, then what grade of evidence should we be demanding for claims of the messiah?  

Hint: More eyewitnesses does not necessarily equal a higher likelihood that the claim is true.

---

Let me ask you this, RR:

What if we found a document dated 15 years ago that describes testimony from 11 anonymous people (we don't know anything about them other than their first names, and we have no way of tracking them down to conduct interviews) who claimed you hit a man in the head with a chair in 2002.  The alleged victim is also not available for interview as he has since passed away.  Should you be charged with this alleged crime?  Should you be convicted based on the testimony described in my document?

Not to mention some of the 11 admit they were not witnesses and that it's impossible that they were  the witnesses in the document because they were all dead by the time it was written. And we have clear evidence of a different narrative that was snuffed out (regardless of Roads denials ) And even earlier reports from the only possible witness call into question the later. I could go on but I think that's enough.

[Pat Mustard]

Here is why I considered the 11 eyewitness accounts as evidence. The evidence may not be enough to convict without video, fingerprints, DNA, etc. but still qualify. Roadrunner stated these people were strangers. The scenario might be a crowded cafe. The witnesses are strangers to one another. What collaboration might there be between them? What would be the motivation for 11 strangers to bear false witness against the attacker?

Even without meaning to the cops could poison all their testimony. For example you could have one person with a deep interest in seeing the s/o charged. Put all witnesses in one room fo an hour before taking statements. If he argues long enough, loudly enough and confidently enough he could persuade the rest to go along with a story of the events that nobody witnessed and which didn't happen.

This kind of effect has bern shown to happen in experiments, with only a minority being willing to go against a developing consensus even when they know it's wrong.

Also I'd like to point out that if RR ever sawTwelve Angry Men this thread wouldn't exist.

[Amarok]

Also I'd like to point out that if RR ever sawTwelve Angry Men this thread wouldn't exist.

freaking love that movie

[Cyberman]

I prefer the Tony Hancock version.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Thanks,   I did miss that part if Astreja was trying to change things though.
However if the fingerprints don't conclusively point to me as the attacker, then of what evidence are they?

---

You keep on adding new "ifs" to the equation.

---

  Let's say for now that they are your prints, and that they're placed on the parts of the chair that you were holding onto when you assaulted the victim. In the presence of other testable things, for example blood from a head wound where the chair leg struck the victim, it's making a rather convincing case against you.

I see no comparable evidence for the foundational claims of Christianity, just hearsay recorded more than a generation after the events they describe.  To put this in perspective, the gospel of Mark (thought to be written circa 66-70 CE) is analogous to someone writing an account in 2017 of miracles of The Force that occurred in an obscure theatre on the Star Wars opening weekend in 1977.

---

Not adding new "ifs". The description, that there was no explicit physical evidence which pointed to any particular person was there from the beginning. And it's also the point of the question.

Also, this isn't about anything else, other than testimony as evidence. Or if it can be. Which is why I gave an example and asked about it. Now I would agree, that details can change the evidential value of the testimony. For example, someone else in the building could have heard the assault and while their testimony is evidence, and can provide information. It's not evidence against me. And we could add even more scenarios that would need to be evaluated, for there worth, but this is about a number of independent witnesses who seen what happened. And asking if that is evidence.

[Amarok]

Wow road returns and right off the bat stumbles and falls flat on his face .

[RoadRunner79]

And anyway, the poll itself is a false dichotomy.  Yes, the testimony CAN be considered evidence but it may not be ENOUGH evidence, by itself, to land you a conviction. 

Do you think it was enough in this case from the information given?  

I agree, it's not always (or even usually) black and white. There may be other evidence which points to a different conclusion to consider. And evidence is weighed for what it tells us. We don't always have all the evidence, that we would like. And the evidence may not be sufficient to form a reasonable conclusion.

So I suppose that there are two questions that are being asked here.

Is Testimony considered in the available body of facts and information which indicates that the proposition is valid?
Can it be sufficient by itself; in a case such as I gave, to come to a reasonable conclusion?

I agree, depending on the details, it may not be enough by itself. Also depending on various situations, there may be times that testimony outweighs other evidence, or vice versa, that the other evidence outweighs the testimony. It's not about a blanket black and white statement.

---

Even without meaning to the cops could poison all their testimony. For example you could have one person with a deep interest in seeing the s/o charged. Put all witnesses in one room fo an hour before taking statements. If he argues long enough, loudly enough and confidently enough he could persuade the rest to go along with a story of the events that nobody witnessed and which didn't happen.

Also I'd like to point out that if RR ever sawTwelve Angry Men this thread wouldn't exist.

I have seen the movie Twelve Angry Men.... it is a favorite of mine.

I also think that you are trying to change things to avoid the scenario again. You are making a case for that which you have no evidence of. It is possible, but is it reasonable, if you have no reason to suspect it? I think that if you include what is possible, then you will need to dismiss everything as evidence.

This kind of effect has bern shown to happen in experiments, with only a minority being willing to go against a developing consensus even when they know it's wrong.

Could this apply to your view of testimony as well?

[Dropship]

How would you honestly answer, This is only about this scenario, not considering anything else.

Surely it's a straightforward question to answer, namely that if I saw you smash somebody over the head I'd make a statement to the police saying exactly that, but if I didn't see you do it I'd tell them that instead.
Or am I missing some hidden depth or something in your question?

[RoadRunner79]

How would you honestly answer, This is only about this scenario, not considering anything else.

Surely it's a straightforward question to answer, namely that if I saw you smash somebody over the head I'd make a statement to the police saying exactly that, but if I didn't see you do it I'd tell them that instead.
Or am I missing some hidden depth or something in your question?

Thanks,

It not so much about giving your testimony, but what can other's reason from it.

Your comment brings to mind however;  if testimony is not evidence at all, then why would the police bother gathering it and have procedures to keep it from becoming contaminated. 
The second part of the question is if it is sufficient to come to a reasonable conclusion based on testimony alone.  In this case, we have the testimony of a number of independent witnesses.

[Astonished]

In the hierarchy of evidence, testimony is basically on the bottom of the totem pole. In and of itself, it is completely worthless. Just like every other type of evidence merely being but one of many pieces in a larger puzzle, testimony is more like a form of weak glue than an actual piece itself, helping the other actual pieces fit together or not connect in the way it might seem. On its own, it is never considered reliable evidence, period. You've heard the explanation(s) as to why that is and have continued to fail to acknowledge this, among other things for what are fairly obvious reasons. DropShit apparently has the same lazy mentality of not understanding how incredibly insufficient that is. Sure, the 'truth' is a great thing to tell but if you aren't reliably able to recount events, or if you're the only one among the witnesses who will, what the fuck good is it?