What are the standards for evidence?

[ChristineM]

I seem to have pushed the button that makes you protest too much

And still no evidence, thanks

Well I am glad you have calmed down.

Perhaps you can calmy rexamine our exchange and see my collected responses and your slightly more abrasive comments.

I can't say that you have pressed a button. I would say that I have found some of your responses slightly humorous. Specifically, me copulating with definitions and my self serving hyperbole. That was quite colorful. It is hard to get your buttons pressed when someone uses colorful language (especially online).

Regarding the evidence, what would you like? Rules of evidence? You never did answer.[/QUOTE]

I am always calm, you just can't handle criticism and have a tendency to waffle to fill in space when you have nothing.

You opinion is not evidence, citation or even valid.

Colourful yes but perfectly suited to the situation. And until you can provided evidence this conversation ends.

Any valid, current evidence that a single eye witness testimony on its own is sufficient to secure a conviction.

 

[Curious George]

Any valid, current evidence that a single eye witness testimony on its own is sufficient to secure a conviction.

That is moving the goal posts quite a lot.

 

[Curious George]

It is my understanding that (for the most part) eye witness testimony (any unvalidated testimony) is no longer seen as legal evidence.

This is our argument. I say this is not true by virtue of how evidence must be presented. You say it is true regardless of how evidence must be presented.

 

[ChristineM]

That is moving the goal posts quite a lot.

You have goal posts? Or you don't have an answer to what i have been arguing all along, remember, you were the one introducing irrelevant hard evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

This is our argument. I say this is not true by virtue of how evidence must be presented. You say it is true regardless of how evidence must be presented.

Nope, that's your argument, mine is that eye witness testimony, "on its own" is no longer enough to secure a conviction.

 

[Curious George]

Nope, that's your argument, mine is that eye witness testimony, "on its own" is no longer enough to secure a conviction.

Um I quoted you...if you want to change your argument, so you can tell yourself you were correct that is fine. What you said originally was wrong.

 

[Curious George]

You have goal posts? Or you don't have an answer to what i have been arguing all along, remember, you were the one introducing irrelevant hard evidence.

No, you did when you said that eye-witness testimony without more doesn't qualify as legal evidence. That was what I said was wrong. Now changing your goal posts and saying that your claim is that eye-witness testimony without more is not sufficient to convict.

 

[ChristineM]

Um I quoted you...if you want to change your argument, so you can tell yourself you were correct that is fine. What you said originally was wrong.

No you didn't, i have been consistent in my statements and have often told you that physical evidence is not in the a argument

 

[ChristineM]

No, you did when you said that eye-witness testimony without more doesn't qualify as legal evidence. That was what I said was wrong. Now changing your goal posts and saying that your claim is that eye-witness testimony without more is not sufficient to convict.

What??? If its not legal evidence then it's not sufficient to convict, you are playing a very childish game

 

[Curious George]

What??? If its not legal evidence then it's not sufficient to convict, you are playing a very childish game

Yes but that it is not sufficient to convict to not mean it is not legal evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes but that it is not sufficient to convict to not mean it is not legal evidence.

Then why was sole eye witness testimony used in the past so secure convictions but not now, unlike you are claiming