Peterson tries to make my signature line all about him.
And, while I’m on the subject of the Book of Mormon witnesses: I came across an argument against them the other day, and against the Book of Mormon itself — and, really, against me — that I would like to share with you and on which I want to briefly comment:
1. Eyewitness testimony, says the critic (whom we’ll call Bucky), is notoriously unreliable. 2. But, says Bucky, the buffoonish Dan Peterson claims that the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony, therefore, according to Peterson, 3.the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is a kind of evidence that is notoriously unreliable.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... or-it.html
Why does Peterson refer to me as “Bucky”? My screen name is “I Have Questions”. Referring to me properly would improve his word count.
Peterson continues with:
I get a kick out of this sort of argument against the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses, which seems to me transparently selective and self-serving. Imagine how most people would react to a trial in which eleven eyewitnesses testify that they plainly saw Frank repeatedly and fatally stab Charlie.
At trial, Frank’s defense attorney stands and, scarcely able to conceal his haughty contempt for the prosecution’s case, declares to the jury that
“1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. According to the State, though, the best evidence for Frank’s guilt is — brace yourselves and try not to laugh! — eyewitness testimony. Therefore, by the prosecution’s own admission, 3. the best and most convincing evidence that Frank murdered Charlie’s is a kind of ‘evidence’ that is notoriously unreliable.”
Or, alternatively, imagine Bucky himself filing a complaint with the police. Arnold, says Bucky, systematically demolished Bucky’s car with a sledgehammer.
“How do you know that it was Arnold who did it”? asks the police officer.
“Because I saw him do it,” responds Bucky. “With my own eyes.”
“But,” the police officer returns, “do you have any corroborating evidence?”
“Yes! I certainly do!” replies Bucky. “Eleven of my neighbors stood on their lawns and on the sidewalk and watched him do it!”
“Is that really all you’ve got?” says the officer, with obvious irritation. “Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. And yet, according to you yourself the best evidence that Arnold was the one who smashed your car with a sledgehammer is, of all things, eyewitness testimony! Accordingly, from your very own mouth, the strongest evidence that Arnold destroyed your car is no more than a kind of ‘evidence’ that is famously unreliable. Stop wasting my time. You’re lucky I don’t arrest you for filing a false report. Come back when (and if) you ever have anything that I can take seriously!”
Peterson clearly hasn’t studied this thread properly. Because I’ve already cited a case such as Pererson’s stabbing example in which it was shown that all the eye witnesses that fingered the perpetrator were in fact, ALL mistaken for various reasons.
I will post it again for our lazy learner Bro Peterson…
In 2010, Aaron Scheerhoorn was stabbed to death outside of a Houston nightclub. The attack was merciless, with Scheerhoorn crying out "Help me! He's killing me!" as he was stabbed numerous times. A crowd witnessed the attack, and upon questioning by detectives, six different eyewitnesses identified Lydell Grant as the murderer.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... you-really
At trial, the six eyewitnesses testified that they had seen Grant murder Scheerhoorn. For violent crimes, any eyewitness is a luxury for the prosecution; six fingering the same defendant is extraordinarily rare. Despite having an alibi, and despite the prosecution having no physical evidence tying him to the crime (which was unusual given the bloody nature of the attack), Grant was quickly found guilty and ultimately sentenced to life in prison. As any lawyer knows, few things sway a jury like eyewitness testimony.
Since the day he was arrested, Grant steadfastly maintained his innocence. From his maximum-security prison in Gatesville, Texas, he sent dozens of letters to defense attorneys in an attempt to have his case reevaluated, but most went unanswered. Years passed; soon Grant found himself imprisoned for nearly a decade.
Everything changed in 2019 when a new DNA testing method analyzed samples from underneath Scheerhoorn's fingernails, clearing Grant and instead implicating another man, Jermarico Carter, who later confessed to the murder. A writ of habeas corpus was filed bringing to light the new DNA evidence, and Grant was quickly released from prison.
returning to the topic of Lydell Grant, reports suggest that all of the eyewitnesses to Scheerhoorn's murder were manipulated in some way either before or after their identification of Grant. Three reported that the detective told them that they had picked the same person that other people had. Two other eyewitnesses discussed their selection with each another and confirmed each other’s memory. The last eyewitness claimed that the detective stated “good job” following their identification of Grant. This type of manipulation can lead not only to incorrect identifications, but also more confidence in eyewitnesses that their memory is correct.
Thank you Brother Peterson for using an example that absolutely supports my board signature and reaffirms that Eye Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable
