JimC wrote:Seth wrote:
Of course it's evidence. Say that sample was collected but misplaced and never presented in court. In the future that sample is discovered and analyzed and it shows that the person convicted of the crime could not have committed the crime. People have been acquitted and freed based on exactly that sort of evidence.
Totally false - I thought you pretended to know something about the law?
In your example, the sample only became evidence when it was re-discovered, and presented in court, to be examined. There are countless nasty stains all over the world that, if analysed and presented to a court, might become evidence of something. However, until that happens, they are, and remain, simply stains.
No, they are undiscovered evidence.
Definition of evidence (n)
Bing Dictionary
ev·i·dence
[ évvid'nss ]
sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no human there to observe it, does it make a sound? Yes, of course it does. If the bloodstain evidence exists on the flooring under the carpet where it has not been observed by a human, does the bloodstain still exist? Yes, of course it does. That it is of no practical use to the judicial process unless and until it is discovered doesn't change the fact of its existence or it's nature as "something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something."
The whole point here is the nature of evidence, whether in a legal or scientific sense. Evidence only exists when some aspect of the world is displayed for judgement by others; a judge or jury, in the case of legal evidence, and fellow scientists who read one's latest paper in the case of scientific evidence.
Wrong. Evidence either exists or does not exist. The probative value if a particular piece of evidence towards proving a particular fact or proposition is something entirely separate from the evidence itself.
If someone wishes to convince you that their point of view has merit, it is pointless them saying that they have secret knowledge which supports their case, but we have to take that "on faith".
No, it's just frustrating for you because they refuse to disclose the evidence that they have that leads them to that conclusion for your scrutiny and judgment. But then again you have no right to expect or demand that they do so. That they refuse to produce the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, just as the fact that the IRS says it "lost" Lois Lerner's emails showing that she deliberately targeted conservative groups for tax harassment doesn't mean the emails have actually been lost.
They can live in their own little delusional world if they wish, but until they present objective evidence to be dispassionately judged by others, their private delusion has no privileged status.
It has whatever status the believers give it, and it has that societal status that the majority in a democratic society says it has. It has the legal status that the majority in a democratic society says it has as well, whether you like it, agree with it, believe it, or not.
Welcome to democracy, may you have it, good and hard.
If you don't like that system, then I suggest you move to Iran, where the Mullahs tell you what you will believe and will cut your head off if you yap about it the way you do here.
Suck it up, buttercup, this is democracy.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
