Evidence to Convict?

[The Grand Nudger]

History, but..more appropriately, claims to historicity... don't need to be repeatable to be falsifiable.   We know, for example, that there was no great flood, and that there was no exodus. We also know that no one was resurrected, that there was no supernatural darkness, and that the ANE didn't go full Walking Dead. We know that the superman with fast feet who purportedly went all over the world spreading and collecting gospel could not have done so. We know, in short, that the "personal testimony" of many "witnesses" and "independant lines of verification" is both no such thing, and completely bunk from start to finish, just like personal testimony of eyewitnesses very commonly is.

[Ravenshire]

I did vote yes, that I think that the testimony is evidence and enough for conviction.

While I certainly hope it never happens to you, it would be ironic if you wound up accused of a crime by way of mistaken identity and were convicted solely on eye-witness testimony.

It would, however, demonstrate unequivocally what many in this thread have tried to explain to you.

[RoadRunner79]

I did vote yes, that I think that the testimony is evidence and enough for conviction.

While I certainly hope it never happens to you, it would be ironic if you wound up accused of a crime by way of mistaken identity and were convicted solely on eye-witness testimony.

It would, however, demonstrate unequivocally what many in this thread have tried to explain to you.

Just for the record, I am for the reforms and extra caution concerning mistaken identity or identifying a stranger.  It's why I specifically made provisions in the OP that mistaken identity wasn't an issue.  It would also be a shame if I was falsely convicted because of a botched DNA test as people have been.

[Astonished]

---

---

YOU CAN'T FUCKING KNOW THAT! So you can't even be given the benefit of the doubt in this preposterous hypothetical.

Are you saying, that there is no way to rule these things out (at least to within reason)?

And the fact that you consider the null hypothesis an 'opinion' tells us everything we need to know about you and how you come to believe what you do. Congratulations.

No... I find that using the null hypothesis to conclude that we always have good reason to doubt  an interesting opinion.

You don't get to say 'reason'. That's OUR word!

[Amarok]

personal testimony" of many "witnesses" and "independant lines

To bad the NT has none of the above .

[Astonished]

personal testimony" of many "witnesses" and "independant lines

To bad the NT has none of the above .

Why limit it to the NT? The OT's got to be worse than that.

[Cyberman]

It would also be a shame if I was falsely convicted because of a botched DNA test as people have been.

Yes, mistakes happen. However the reason we know about those cases is precisely because the evidence can be objectively re-examined by anyone, and the conviction overturned. I wouldn't want to live in a society where that didn't happen and personal testimony alone was enough to convict. Would you? It's not even how the rules here are applied. I'm sure you'd be the first to object if we banned people solely on that basis.

[Mister Agenda]

Speaking of evasion, that's what you're doing here with my question about whether you are claiming that I have tried to evade your point. That I have not tried to change the scenario in that fashion or for that reason is immaterial to whether you are claiming I did.

RR, to MA: People are changing my scenario to evade my point!
MA, to RR: Are you claiming that I have tried to evade your point?
RR, to MA, seemingly: If you say you were, I'm claiming that you did; but if you say you weren't, I'm not claiming that you did....

I think that it appears that you are.  But was allowing you to clarify, in case I misunderstood your intentions.

Thank you. Please walk me through what I posted that makes you think so, so I can understand my error.

[RoadRunner79]

It would also be a shame if I was falsely convicted because of a botched DNA test as people have been.

Yes, mistakes happen. However the reason we know about those cases is precisely because the evidence can be objectively re-examined by anyone, and the conviction overturned. I wouldn't want to live in a society where that didn't happen and personal testimony alone was enough to convict. Would you? It's not even how the rules here are applied. I'm sure you'd be the first to object if we banned people solely on that basis.

I understand where you are coming from.   And with DNA, the false convictions, was mostly the result of human error and contamination.   I do think that there are other issues, that we are just starting to come up concerning DNA, but they are more false negatives, which is what is preferred in a criminal case.  Although my understanding of the process of DNA testing, is that it is not quite as objective as is sometimes thought.  See Here  

“If you show 10 colleagues a mixture, you will
probably end up with 10 different answers”
– Peter Gill   Human Identification E-Symposium, April 14, 2005

An article I was reading the other day, had a lab in texas where over 500 cases needed to be re-examined because of poor procedures and controls in the lab where the tests where done, and the problem is likely more widespread than we think.  And where sample of multiple people's DNA is present, it has more difficulty.

As too often is the case in forensics: our hubris is a problem

And a limit of DNA evidence, is that it is well limited in what it tells you.  I'm probably don't put quite as stock as some where the DNA is the primary evidence.  Say when a DNA test comes back negative, I don't automatically say innocent.  Everything may need to be re-examined in light of this, but it's not automatic.

One of the other assumptions, I don't think I addressed in this, was the accusation of trying to turn it into a criminal case.   I think this is natural, because we often think about evidence most when it comes to criminal cases.  So it's a common comparison.  Even though I used the conviction because of the nature of the scenario as a focus, it wasn't only about testimony in a criminal sense.   And in a historical investigation both DNA and witness identification are going to play much less of a role.

Now as to being objective... I don't know about that.   I think this is why we have multiple juror's in a trial, and they must be in agreement.  If it's a matter of objectivity, then we wouldn't have jurors at all, but just feed the data into an equation or spreadsheet, and tabulate the results.  That would scare the hell out of me. 

However we do live in a society where testimony alone is enough to convict (as I mentioned previously  a case by J. Warner Wallace).  And I don't think that is a problem.  As long as we test our witnesses. It's important still to have multiple independent lines of evidence, what they have to say and contribute to the information about the case and are aware of the limits and shortcomings of the evidence.  A number of testimonies, can give us much more information from which to base a reasoned conclusion, than an equal number of other forms of evidence.

---

I think that it appears that you are.  But was allowing you to clarify, in case I misunderstood your intentions.

Thank you. Please walk me through what I posted that makes you think so, so I can understand my error.

Looking back, it appears, that it was mostly just the argument that others be able to change the scenario, for which some where trying to bring in physical evidence to avoid the question of testimony.  I apologize.    And as I had told you before, I do agree, that there are going to be details about the testimony and people themselves, that I wasn't going to get into in a post.  Assumption that the testimony was good where to be made, for the sake of brevity. 

In that regard, I don't think that I was making constant large changes to the scenario, as some seem to imply either.   Mostly the clarification for the above.  Would you agree?

[Astonished]

Now as to being objective... I don't know about that.   I think this is why we have multiple juror's in a trial, and they must be in agreement.  If it's a matter of objectivity, then we wouldn't have jurors at all, but just feed the data into an equation or spreadsheet, and tabulate the results.  That would scare the hell out of me. 

However we do live in a society where testimony alone is enough to convict (as I mentioned previously  a case by J. Warner Wallace).  And I don't think that is a problem.  As long as we test our witnesses. It's important still to have multiple independent lines of evidence, what they have to say and contribute to the information about the case and are aware of the limits and shortcomings of the evidence.  A number of testimonies, can give us much more information from which to base a reasoned conclusion, than an equal number of other forms of evidence.

---

Thank you. Please walk me through what I posted that makes you think so, so I can understand my error.

Looking back, it appears, that it was mostly just the argument that others be able to change the scenario, for which some where trying to bring in physical evidence to avoid the question of testimony.  I apologize.    And as I had told you before, I do agree, that there are going to be details about the testimony and people themselves, that I wasn't going to get into in a post.  Assumption that the testimony was good where to be made, for the sake of brevity. 

In that regard, I don't think that I was making constant large changes to the scenario, as some seem to imply either.   Mostly the clarification for the above.  Would you agree?

I don't see how you can say that with a straight face if you say Twelve Angry Men is one of your favorite movies. It's also a hallmark of theism to mistrust machinery so it's no surprise you'd be less fearful of human jurors than a program that could calculate odds on an algorithm, if, since you like hypotheticals so much, that would be far more objective than humans can be and should be sophisticated enough to be free of errors.

And no, sorry, you're wrong (about the same thing you keep failing to understand). Testimony cannot do what you're claiming. It can support other evidence and nothing more substantial. It is too unreliable to take at face value on its own. Case in point, your repeated and continued lack of ability or willingness to grasp this objective fact.