Is it me or is this site in its death throes?

One person sees something and gives an account. Another person sees the same thing and gives an account. The eyewitness testimony is thus reproduced.
No. Two people observing the same event is not "reproducing" anything. To be reproducible, the observation would have to be made by different people on different occasions. That's why eyewitness accounts are such poor evidence. The only reliable way to observe the past is through the artefacts that it leaves behind.
 
It is not reproducing the experiment which is what BWS said. I suggest you go back to grade school if your reading comprehension is actually that poor.

It's a reproduced event, Every time. There's no way around this. And flaming is against the rules. I suggest you refrain from it.
 
No. Two people observing the same event is not "reproducing" anything. To be reproducible, the observation would have to be made by different people on different occasions. That's why eyewitness accounts are such poor evidence. The only reliable way to observe the past is through the artefacts that it leaves behind.

No..the witnessing of the event is multiple--ie. not one event. Hence they are reproduced occasions of witnessing the event. This is basic common sense. And this is why multiple eyewitness accounts that corrobrate each other are such strong evidence.
 
Go ahead and post where he warned me about claiming things people did not say, I'll wait.

Certainly - I will request James to post the full content of what he stated here, out of respect for him having said that in the privacy of the Moderators forum.

I will also advise James R to review the infraction I am issuing you for continued Trolling and failure to follow the previous warnings he gave you.
 
No..the witnessing of the event is multiple--ie. not one event.
The witnessing of one event is still one event. That's mathematics, son. You can't argue with mathematics.

And this is why multiple eyewitness accounts that corrobrate each other are such strong evidence.
Multiple witnesses may have similar biases, they may collude, etc. - which is why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable.
 
Certainly - I will request James to post the full content of what he stated here, out of respect for him having said that in the privacy of the Moderators forum.

I will also advise James R to review the infraction I am issuing you for continued Trolling and failure to follow the previous warnings he gave you.

Reported for issuing bogus infractions again. He has history of doing this to me.
 
You were at 95, now you are at zero... what? Age? Shoe Size? Number of Watermelons on your Roof?



Then, as I said - take it up with James R - otherwise, quit whining when you fail to make a good argument ;)

You dont know? You too were instrumental in giving some number out of 95, because you were of the opinion that paddoboy had sound science knowledge....quite ludicrous.

I am not whinning, you are arrogantly scrapping around.
 
You dont know? You too were instrumental in giving some number out of 95, because you were of the opinion that paddoboy had sound science knowledge....quite ludicrous.

I am not whinning, you are arrogantly scrapping around.

Ah, so you are complaining about infraction points? I believe the rules tell you what to do if you disagreed... ah, what do you know, they do.

Yep, you are whining.

This one is bad, you are an active participant in this fight, you cannot infract. Yes you can recommend to James or other Mod.

Oh, really? Hum, I must have missed that in our rules - surely you can point out where that is said?
 
The witnessing of one event is still one event. That's mathematics, son. You can't argue with mathematics.

Yes, and one that was reproduced by two different people.

Multiple witnesses may have similar biases, they may collude, etc. - which is why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable.

Which is why it is so "unreliable" in court trials, news reports, and history. Yeah..so unreliable. lol!
 
Yes, and one that was reproduced by two different people.
Just so it is on record in case you attempt to edit it... you are now saying that the witnessing of one event by two different people is the same as said event being carried out by two people.
 
Ah, so you are complaining about infraction points? I believe the rules tell you what to do if you disagreed... ah, what do you know, they do.

Yep, you are whining.



Oh, really? Hum, I must have missed that in our rules - surely you can point out where that is said?

So a rule must tell you that when you fight with a member vociferously, and when that member takes you on with same vigour, it is absolute abuse of your power as Mod to infract him.

That's a looser's play.
 
Yes, and one that was reproduced by two different people.
That's not what reproduction means.

Which is why it is so reliable in court trials....
It isn't. Innocent people get convicted by lying witnesses. The courts would much rather have hard evidence.

I used to work at a police academy and I was involved in an experiment about eyewitness reports. Somebody ran into the room and took something out of somebody else's gym bag. He was described as tall and short, dark-haired and light-haired, wearing a black or blue or red jacket. He took a camera or a book or a wallet. (In fact, he took nothing.)

That's your "reliable" eyewitness testimony.
 
It isn't. Innocent people get convicted by lying witnesses. The courts would much rather have hard evidence.

I used to work at a police academy and I was involved in an experiment about eyewitness reports. Somebody ran into the room and took something out of somebody else's gym bag. He was described as tall and short, dark-haired and light-haired, wearing a black or blue or red jacket. He took a camera or a book or a wallet. (In fact, he took nothing.)

That's your "reliable" eyewitness testimony.

And yet criminals get arrested and convicted on eyewitness testimony all the time. So damn unreliable...lol!
 
So a rule must tell you that when you fight with a member vociferously, and when that member takes you on with same vigour, it is absolute abuse of your power as Mod to infract him.

That's a looser's play.

I do believe I said I already submit it to James R for review - if you feel that is somehow insufficient, or that I otherwise acted inappropriately, I suggest you take it up with the Administration, rather than whining about it in public (which is something the Site Rules do, in fact, cover)
 
And yet criminals get arrested and convicted on eyewitness testimony all the time. So damn unreliable...lol!

Criminals also get arrested without eyewitness testimony all the time... and innocent people are convicted (and even sentenced to death) on incorrect, falsified, or otherwise erroneous eye-witness testimony.

Yes, I would say that is rather unreliable - it ends innocent lives.

Not near as often as witnesses being truthful and guilty people being convicted.

You are making a solid claim here - support it.

I counter that eye witness misidentification has resulted in numerous erroneous convictions:
https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

How DNA makes a difference in the criminal justice system
  • Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.
Further evidence for the problems with eye-witness testimony:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html

Consider the case of Jimmy Landano. Landano is a former heroin addict and ex-con who did time in Attica. He's now doing life plus fifteen years in Rahway State Prison in New Jersey for killing a policeman in 1976. He was also convicted of robbery, gun possession, breaking in, car theft, and conspiracy.
blank.gif
Four eyewitnesses and an accomplice who admitted his own role in the murder testified in court that Landano was the man who fired the fatal shot. Hairs found in the killer's hat were similar to Landano's; his name was in the address book of another accomplice to the murder; and he had no airtight alibi.
blank.gif
The case against the ex-con and ex-junkie was overwhelmingly persuasive. And when he threatened to "come after" the prosecutor when he got out of prison, the judge and jury were even more convinced that they had convicted a dangerous criminal who should spend his life behind bars.
blank.gif
But Landano claims that he was set up by members of a motorcycle gang known as The Breed in order to protect the real killer. They planted a hat similar to his own on the seat of the getaway car, Landano says. His history as a heroin addict and his incarceration in Attica for grand larceny made him a perfect "throwaway."
blank.gif
Four eyewitnesses pointed to a photograph of Landano as the cop killer; but not all of their facts fit. One eyewitness claimed the killer had a thick mustache while another described the man as having no mustache at all; Landano has a bushy mustache. One forensics expert testified that hairs found in the killer's hat might be Landano's; another expert said they probably weren't. The killer's ski jacket looked comical on Landano, the sleeves reaching only two-thirds of the way down his long arms, exposing two tattoos. Tight at the shoulders and around the chest, it restricted his movements; he couldn't even make the zippers meet. His mother and girlfriend testified that he had been with them during the morning of the killing; but even if the jury believed them, there was theoretically enough time for Landano to commit the crime.
blank.gif
Jim Landano spends his free time in prison reading court transcripts and police reports, pleading his case to anyone who will listen, writing letters to lawyers and reporters, and helping other inmates with similar cases. He is forty-four years old, and it will be twenty more long years before he is eligible for parole. The waiting makes him edgy; he is terrified of growing old in prison and missing out on the chance to straighten out his troubled life. Prisons breed hatred and desperation, he says. "When you treat people like animals," he repeats, over and over, "I've been framed," Landano says with fierce conviction. "I'm innocent."
blank.gif
It's one man's passionate declaration of innocence against the sworn word of four eyewitnesses, three accomplices, and a jury of twelve people who carefully weighed the evidence and found Jimmy Landano guilty.

Some additional reading:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=4521253

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/18/eyewitness-evidence-wrongful-conviction

https://public.psych.iastate.edu/gl...yewitness_Identification_ A_Policy_Review.pdf

All come to a strikingly similar conclusion - eye witnesses memory is easily misled by bias and other influences, and is far too unreliable to be given the weight it currently has.

Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?

So... 73% of the 239 wrongful convictions - 175 innocent people sent to prison for crimes they did not commit. And that's just of these 239 cases that have been retried.
 
Criminals also get arrested without eyewitness testimony all the time... and innocent people are convicted (and even sentenced to death) on incorrect, falsified, or otherwise erroneous eye-witness testimony.

Yes, I would say that is rather unreliable - it ends innocent lives.



You are making a solid claim here - support it.

I counter that eye witness misidentification has resulted in numerous erroneous convictions:
https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/


Further evidence for the problems with eye-witness testimony:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html



Some additional reading:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=4521253

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/18/eyewitness-evidence-wrongful-conviction

https://public.psych.iastate.edu/glwells/The_Justice Project_Eyewitness_Identification_ A_Policy_Review.pdf

All come to a strikingly similar conclusion - eye witnesses memory is easily misled by bias and other influences, and is far too unreliable to be given the weight it currently has.



So... 73% of the 239 wrongful convictions - 175 innocent people sent to prison for crimes they did not commit. And that's just of these 239 cases that have been retried.

Doesn't even come close to the number of convictions of the guilty based in eyewitness testimony. Those must number in the tens of thousands.
 
Back
Top