Judicial Proceedings from SeN

[Billy Shears]

I posted a response to Dr. Peterson’s thread on this topic, and it has been lost in a “Pending” status for the last 9 hours. In case it is never released from pending and you are interested, here is what I wrote:

If Frank were on trial for murdering Charlie and there were 11 eye-witnesses that claim they saw Frank do it, I would hope Frank’s attorney would cross-examine the witnesses and the police chief with questions like these:

Q: So you saw Frank kill Charlie. How did you come to witness this event?

A: Well, my best friend is the police chief, and he thought I’d make an excellent witness, so he invited me to come watch it. That is why I was there.

Q: So you weren’t naturally going about your business and happened to see something, but rather you were personally invited to see a show with 10 other like-minded individuals, all of whom were loyal to the police chief, and that is how you came to witness this event?

A: Yes.

Police Chief on the Stand

Q: So, eleven close, loyal friends of yours are all testifying that they saw this murder, and the reason they are the witnesses is because you invited them to witness the event, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Could we see a report from the medical examiner about Charlie’s cause of death?

A: No, we didn’t take the body to the medical examiner--we took it straight to get cremated.

Q: So, because of your own decisions of how this would be handled, we don’t have testimony from a medical examiner that Charlie died of these alleged stab wonds.

A: No, but we have eleven witnesses to the murder, so we know how it happened.

Q: Did the CSI’s take any photos of the crime scene?

A: No. I didn’t send CSI to look at the crime scene, and it is now clean.

Q: So there is no physical evidence that this murder took place?

A: Correct.

Q: Who is this “Charlie” fellow who was murdered? Where did he live? Where did he work? Who were his friends and associates? Where is his birth certificate?

A: Charlie was a loner. He didn’t have a job, didn’t have a house, didn’t have any friends or family members, didn’t have any associates, and other than the 11 witnesses seeing he was murdered, there is no evidence that he even existed.

Q: So based on the witness statements of these 11 witnesses, you want us to convict somebody of murder when there is no body, no physical evidence of a crime, and no evidence that the victim even ever existed in the first place?

[drumdude]

I haven’t seen anything you’ve posted in months Billy, so it’s likely Peterson has banned you.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Excellent post Billy! I can see why Afore won’t allow it to post.

[Doctor Scratch]

The “Witnesses Argument” cannot stand up to serious scrutiny. That’s why you’ve been banned, Billy. But the reason why it continues to be a “thing” is because DCP is constitutionally incapable of backing down, making a concession, or admitting to being wrong. It is his primary character flaw and it has cost him enormously over the years. It’s also exceptionally easy to exploit.

[Philo Sofee]

I posted a response to Dr. Peterson’s thread on this topic, and it has been lost in a “Pending” status for the last 9 hours. In case it is never released from pending and you are interested, here is what I wrote:

If Frank were on trial for murdering Charlie and there were 11 eye-witnesses that claim they saw Frank do it, I would hope Frank’s attorney would cross-examine the witnesses and the police chief with questions like these:

Q: So you saw Frank kill Charlie. How did you come to witness this event?

A: Well, my best friend is the police chief, and he thought I’d make an excellent witness, so he invited me to come watch it. That is why I was there.

Q: So you weren’t naturally going about your business and happened to see something, but rather you were personally invited to see a show with 10 other like-minded individuals, all of whom were loyal to the police chief, and that is how you came to witness this event?

A: Yes.

Police Chief on the Stand

Q: So, eleven close, loyal friends of yours are all testifying that they saw this murder, and the reason they are the witnesses is because you invited them to witness the event, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Could we see a report from the medical examiner about Charlie’s cause of death?

A: No, we didn’t take the body to the medical examiner--we took it straight to get cremated.

Q: So, because of your own decisions of how this would be handled, we don’t have testimony from a medical examiner that Charlie died of these alleged stab wonds.

A: No, but we have eleven witnesses to the murder, so we know how it happened.

Q: Did the CSI’s take any photos of the crime scene?

A: No. I didn’t send CSI to look at the crime scene, and it is now clean.

Q: So there is no physical evidence that this murder took place?

A: Correct.

Q: Who is this “Charlie” fellow who was murdered? Where did he live? Where did he work? Who were his friends and associates? Where is his birth certificate?

A: Charlie was a loner. He didn’t have a job, didn’t have a house, didn’t have any friends or family members, didn’t have any associates, and other than the 11 witnesses seeing he was murdered, there is no evidence that he even existed.

Q: So based on the witness statements of these 11 witnesses, you want us to convict somebody of murder when there is no body, no physical evidence of a crime, and no evidence that the victim even ever existed in the first place?

It's amazing Peterson can't grasp this. And if he can and doesn't share it or discuss it, it shows him guilty of lying and hypocrisy. I mean its no surprise but it's still awful how literally one sided and blind that man can be. All for the church...

[I Have Questions]

Great points, Physics Guy. The thing is: DCP is being disingenuous. He says that it "seems to me transparently selective and self-serving," and it's like, "No, really?" It's not as if he touts the eyewitness testimony for things like UFOs or Bigfoot. And does he really care about the witnesses who testified to the authenticity of the Voree Plates? No: he openly ridicules the Strangites and even said repeatedly that he wanted "Pee-Wee Herman" to play Strang in his movie. Or how about Ellen Gould Harmon's various visions? He's openly hostile to the validity of eyewitness testimony when it suits him, and he's "transparently selective" when it comes to believing in testimony that supports his faith.

And that’s why Mormon apologetics is dishonest - what they accept as legitimate evidence in favour of their beliefs, they do not accept as legitimate evidence for anything contrary to their beliefs. They are not even handed. They are not intellectually honest.

[I Have Questions]

It is interesting that some commentators on SeN haven’t educated themselves on the subject of witness reliability.

The antis have a problem that gets them all riled up and it is that experience testimony—eyewitness accounts for example—ARE superior to someone’s subjective opinion. It is possible, of course, that one eye witness account may be off-based, and there are ways to test the reliability of the witness, but multiple corroborating witness testimonies defeats the opinionator whose opposition is premised fundamentally on the notion that the eye witness testimony conflicts with how they want to see the world and how they want us also to see the world.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

So the first premise of my signature is that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Given the amount of studies and data that have at this point been examined, this premise is really unarguable. When it comes to corroborating witnesses as a group - especially when that group of corroborating witnesses is coordinated by a central person, especially when the group are all closely related with a vested interest in the outcome, it is even more unreliable than eye witness testimony is generally.

Grosskreutz: "It has been reported that Bucky was the victim of a home invasion just before sunrise this morning. When detectives requested a description of the two perpetrators, Bucky bristled and said, "Are you nuts? You know perfectly well that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable!""

LOL

Again, this silly outburst is not a rebuttal of the premise that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. It can’t be rebutted because there is too much weight of evidence showing that it is the case that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

[Moksha]

Dr. Peterson's acolyte LB has stated the SeN position quite well:

In your judicially unprecedented and fevered dreams, and likely the dreams of the likes of North Korean judges. You went to what law school? Just asking.

One wonders if such a North Korean judge with imprison a Catholic for believing in the real presence, demanding he present evidence.

by the way, Billy Shear's brilliant dialogue was posted, but not responded to. There is one other poster, Sandy Plage who has done an excellent job as well. You have to love the name Sandy Plage and his brother Draper Plage.

[Kishkumen]

I posted a response to Dr. Peterson’s thread on this topic, and it has been lost in a “Pending” status for the last 9 hours. In case it is never released from pending and you are interested, here is what I wrote:

If Frank were on trial for murdering Charlie and there were 11 eye-witnesses that claim they saw Frank do it, I would hope Frank’s attorney would cross-examine the witnesses and the police chief with questions like these:

Q: So you saw Frank kill Charlie. How did you come to witness this event?

A: Well, my best friend is the police chief, and he thought I’d make an excellent witness, so he invited me to come watch it. That is why I was there.

Q: So you weren’t naturally going about your business and happened to see something, but rather you were personally invited to see a show with 10 other like-minded individuals, all of whom were loyal to the police chief, and that is how you came to witness this event?

A: Yes.

Police Chief on the Stand

Q: So, eleven close, loyal friends of yours are all testifying that they saw this murder, and the reason they are the witnesses is because you invited them to witness the event, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Could we see a report from the medical examiner about Charlie’s cause of death?

A: No, we didn’t take the body to the medical examiner--we took it straight to get cremated.

Q: So, because of your own decisions of how this would be handled, we don’t have testimony from a medical examiner that Charlie died of these alleged stab wonds.

A: No, but we have eleven witnesses to the murder, so we know how it happened.

Q: Did the CSI’s take any photos of the crime scene?

A: No. I didn’t send CSI to look at the crime scene, and it is now clean.

Q: So there is no physical evidence that this murder took place?

A: Correct.

Q: Who is this “Charlie” fellow who was murdered? Where did he live? Where did he work? Who were his friends and associates? Where is his birth certificate?

A: Charlie was a loner. He didn’t have a job, didn’t have a house, didn’t have any friends or family members, didn’t have any associates, and other than the 11 witnesses seeing he was murdered, there is no evidence that he even existed.

Q: So based on the witness statements of these 11 witnesses, you want us to convict somebody of murder when there is no body, no physical evidence of a crime, and no evidence that the victim even ever existed in the first place?

Bingo. Nicely done.

[Dr. Shades]

Bingo. Nicely done.

I agree. You did a Hell of a great job with that post, Billy! I'm going to have to remember it.