Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(August 5, 2017 at 10:25 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Yes, there are times where people get away with something because of lack of evidence (despite some peoples protest that this was an impossible aspect of the scenario). And it is interesting, that apart from the video which they failed to collect, you don't think the testimony of the one who called the police would have made any difference. Even if thirty people had witnessed and attested on your behalf, that it could not be objectively assessed, and useless towards your case.
Keep in mind, that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, based on just one testimony which only briefly described the event.
Correct. In the case I described, not only would the passerby's testimony have been unsupportive, but so would mine as an earwitness - absent any other evidence. That the police never bothered to take either of our statements at all is one point of the issue we're contesting. I know Shell and I know that bastard, and I know what he's done in the past. The police don't, at least at this level.
Okay. You were one of the attending officers. You see one young woman in pain and distress, with bruising apparent. She says she's been assaulted. You see an older man with three friends, all swearing that it was reasonable force, self-defence etc. You personally know none of these people. Who is telling the truth?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
August 5, 2017 at 11:33 am (This post was last modified: August 5, 2017 at 11:37 am by RoadRunner79.)
(August 5, 2017 at 11:04 am)Cyberman Wrote:
(August 5, 2017 at 10:25 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Yes, there are times where people get away with something because of lack of evidence (despite some peoples protest that this was an impossible aspect of the scenario). And it is interesting, that apart from the video which they failed to collect, you don't think the testimony of the one who called the police would have made any difference. Even if thirty people had witnessed and attested on your behalf, that it could not be objectively assessed, and useless towards your case.
Keep in mind, that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, based on just one testimony which only briefly described the event.
Correct. In the case I described, not only would the passerby's testimony have been unsupportive, but so would mine as an earwitness - absent any other evidence. That the police never bothered to take either of our statements at all is one point of the issue we're contesting. I know Shell and I know that bastard, and I know what he's done in the past. The police don't, at least at this level.
Okay. You were one of the attending officers. You see one young woman in pain and distress, with bruising apparent. She says she's been assaulted. You see an older man with three friends, all swearing that it was reasonable force, self-defence etc. You personally know none of these people. Who is telling the truth?
Ok... if the passerby testimony would be unsupportive (assuming that they can relate some useful detail of the altercation) Why would you be contesting that they didn't take your statements? Other than the video, I wouldn't think that physical evidence is going to necessarily tell you who started it or what had occurred, only the result of the altercation.
And I agree, as an independent, with three against two, and conflicting testimony, you can't really make an informed decision in this. I would also think that an independent party (or preferably more than one), that can support one side or the other, would be quite useful. If we are not taking testimony into account, then for all I know, you could have injured Shelly, or it could have been from something totally unrelated. The older man and his friends could have been trying to help. However given even the disparate testimonies, I don't think that such wild speculation of possibilities is justified based on the evidence. I think that even though they may lead to different conclusions, we can ascertain some from the two groups accounts.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Yes, that's the whole point. It's unfortunate, but inevitable given the nature of personal testimony.
And what we're contesting is the ineptitude of the police in not following procedure, wasting time and allowing vital evidence to be destroyed, thank you very much.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
It occurs to me, that perhaps there is a difference in locale. Frankly the extent to which some post modern ideas are being followed to day, simply amazes me. In the US, the police are going to take statements in the investigation, not just as a stab in the dark, to find other physical corroboration, but as actual evidence in determining the truth of the matter. Further the court may call a witness to testify to what they saw or heard. Is this different where ever you are at?
I'm also curious, because when having a discussion involving the definition of something. I often look up the definition just to ensure that I'm not thinking of some odd offshoot or distortion of the word. Did anyone else do this?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
August 5, 2017 at 12:18 pm (This post was last modified: August 5, 2017 at 12:26 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
The amount of pages you've wasted tryng to maintan the credibility of testimony when the very standard you're referring to absolutely does -not- accept testimony in a vacuum as sufficient to convict is staggering.
If all the prosecution has on you is someone saying you did something - it won't even make it to trial. It doesn't even meet the basic requirements for litigation, you can forget about a conviction. This isn;t an opinion, or a philosophic position on the nature of evidence, or even debatable. It's a cut and dry answer to your question.
Witnesses are not called to -be- the facts of a case, but to support the facts of a case as established by the defense or prosecution. The police take those statements for precisely the same reason. They hope to find a narrative between respondants that matches the evidence available.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(August 5, 2017 at 12:18 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The amount of pages you've wasted tryng to maintan the credibility of testimony when the very standard you're referring to absolutely does -not- accept testimony in a vacuum as sufficient to convict is staggering.
You mean the amount of pages I spent trying to ascertain peoples opinions on the credibility of testimony and it's value as evidence towards a conviction.
if by saying the standard I'm referring to (meaning my claim about here in the U.S.) "absolutely does not accept testimony in a vaccum", Thanks for your opinion. Here is some expert opinion?
However this is different from the question or discussion about if this should be the case (or should be changed). And again, I'm mostly just interested in learning about my fellow posters here at AF.org Not really a debate, but I'm learning a lot.
And whether evidence is accepted by a jury or is sufficient to convict is also another matter.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
August 5, 2017 at 12:44 pm (This post was last modified: August 5, 2017 at 12:52 pm by LadyForCamus.)
RR, are you aware that a woman can be raped face to face by a man, and STILL pick the wrong guy out of the line-up? Do you realize that innocent men have gone to prison for YEARS because of this reliance on the witnesses testimony alone? I mean, what more damning evidence could there be for a man accused of rape than the rape victim identifying her attacker, right? Human memory simply cannot be trusted, and more witnesses does not necessarily mean a higher degree of accuracy in what is being recalled.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
August 5, 2017 at 12:45 pm (This post was last modified: August 5, 2017 at 12:47 pm by Pat Mustard.)
I work in a police station, as a civilian clerical officer. A lot of my work is the taking in of reports from the Sergeant I/C's office either for decision by the Superintendent or Inspector (whichever one is in the office doing signing duties that day) or for onward transmission to Thurles to keep the Chief Supt appraised of ongoing investigations (she always wants to know about major incidents, incidents where members are hurt doing their duty or allegations of child abuse. Apart from that she keeps an eye out for slow moving investigations), or for transmission to the state solicitor so that the Director of Public Prosecutions can make a direction on whether a criminal charge can be brought, and if so to what level of court. As a result I get to read a lot of summary and full investigation reports.
One thing that is universal, every case the investigating member has to establish evidence other than witness testimony, whether CCTV, photographic or even forensic if they wish the case not to be sent back down to them with a scathing rebuke. Testimony, even of members of An Garda Síochána, is not enough on its own to bring a case to court, never mind getting a conviction. About the only exception to this is in historical allegations, where witness testimony comes from a good number of sources and the details given can be matched up and verified independently of the witnesses (e.g. if an address was given, ensuring that the s/o either lived at or had free access to that address at that time). And even with those kinds of cases, I can see from the investigation files that every effort possible will be made to trace physical evidence aside from the testimony.
Given that, I am fairly confident that Road Runner's scenario would make it as far as the Superintendent's office before being sent down to be marked as inactive pending the finding or submission of some actual evidence that a crime took place. Yes, it would be thoroughly investigated before this decision, but given what he is saying it would go no further.
August 5, 2017 at 12:52 pm (This post was last modified: August 5, 2017 at 12:58 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(August 5, 2017 at 12:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: RR, are you aware that a woman can be raped face to face by a man, and STILL pick the wrong guy out of the line-up? Do you realize that innocent men have gone to prison for YEARS because of this reliance on the witnesses testimony alone? I mean, what more damning evidence could there be for a man accused of rape than the rape victim identifying her attacker, right? Human memory simply cannot be trusted, and more witnesses does not necessarily mean higher recall accuracy.
Yes I am aware of those... and as I have stated previously, I agree completely with the issues of identifying a stranger, and urging caution even with believed certainty in identification. I do think it is different, if the person knows the accused prior though.
(August 5, 2017 at 12:45 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: I work in a police station, as a civilian clerical officer.
A lot of my work is the taking in of reports from the Sergeant I/C's office either for decision by the Superintendent or Inspector (whichever one is in the office doing signing duties that day) or for onward transmission to Thurles to keep the Chief Supt appraised of ongoing investigations (she always wants to know about major incidents, incidents where members are hurt doing their duty or allegations of child abuse. Apart from that she keeps an eye out for slow moving investigations), or for transmission to the state solicitor so that the Director of Public Prosecutions can make a direction on whether a criminal charge can be brought, and if so to what level of court. As a result I get to read a lot of summary and full investigation reports.
One thing that is universal, every case the investigating member has to establish evidence other than witness testimony, whether CCTV, photographic or even forensic if they wish the case not to be sent back down to them with a scathing rebuke. Testimony, even of members of An Garda Síochána, is not enough on its own to bring a case to court, never mind getting a conviction. About the only exception to this is in historical allegations, where witness testimony comes from a good number of sources and the details given can be matched up and verified independently of the witnesses (e.g. if an address was given, ensuring that the s/o either lived at or had free access to that address at that time). And even with those kinds of cases, I can see from the investigation files that every effort possible will be made to trace physical evidence aside from the testimony.
Given that, I am fairly confident that Road Runner's scenario would make it as far as the Superintendent's office before being sent down to be marked as inactive pending the finding or submission of some actual evidence that a crime took place. Yes, it would be thoroughly investigated before this decision, but given what he is saying it would go no further.
Interesting... do you mind if I ask where you live (being as generic as you like of course)?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
(August 5, 2017 at 12:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: RR, are you aware that a woman can be raped face to face by a man, and STILL pick the wrong guy out of the line-up? Do you realize that innocent men have gone to prison for YEARS because of this reliance on the witnesses testimony alone? I mean, what more damning evidence could there be for a man accused of rape than the rape victim identifying her attacker, right? Human memory simply cannot be trusted, and more witnesses does not necessarily mean higher recall accuracy.
Yes I am aware of those... and as I have stated previously, I agree completely with the issues of identifying a stranger, and urging caution even with believed certainty in identification. I do think it is different, if the person knows the accused prior though.
(August 5, 2017 at 12:45 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: I work in a police station, as a civilian clerical officer.
A lot of my work is the taking in of reports from the Sergeant I/C's office either for decision by the Superintendent or Inspector (whichever one is in the office doing signing duties that day) or for onward transmission to Thurles to keep the Chief Supt appraised of ongoing investigations (she always wants to know about major incidents, incidents where members are hurt doing their duty or allegations of child abuse. Apart from that she keeps an eye out for slow moving investigations), or for transmission to the state solicitor so that the Director of Public Prosecutions can make a direction on whether a criminal charge can be brought, and if so to what level of court. As a result I get to read a lot of summary and full investigation reports.
One thing that is universal, every case the investigating member has to establish evidence other than witness testimony, whether CCTV, photographic or even forensic if they wish the case not to be sent back down to them with a scathing rebuke. Testimony, even of members of An Garda Síochána, is not enough on its own to bring a case to court, never mind getting a conviction. About the only exception to this is in historical allegations, where witness testimony comes from a good number of sources and the details given can be matched up and verified independently of the witnesses (e.g. if an address was given, ensuring that the s/o either lived at or had free access to that address at that time). And even with those kinds of cases, I can see from the investigation files that every effort possible will be made to trace physical evidence aside from the testimony.
Given that, I am fairly confident that Road Runner's scenario would make it as far as the Superintendent's office before being sent down to be marked as inactive pending the finding or submission of some actual evidence that a crime took place. Yes, it would be thoroughly investigated before this decision, but given what he is saying it would go no further.
Interesting... do you mind if I ask where you live (being as generic as you like of course)?
Live in Limerick work in Clonmel. Yes, yes I know the Irish justice system is somewhat different than the US one (but with both being common law not by that much) but the number of cases where you go to court on testimony alone is vanishingly small (at least in countries which work by the rule of law).
