Lately there has been a misinformed pesky critic, who defies some rules of etiquette, forcing him to be bounced here and there.
Any way this critic has made the comment:
“I love how the footers (Including Kulls) use the witness argument when referring to court proceedings. Any witnesses to an event must have Corroborating evidence tending to confirm other evidence, or strengthen or confirm the initial evidence.
So I ask you, how can a bigfoot witness report confirm the initial evidence?…what evidence about bigfoot existence has ever been confirmed?….none! therefore any eyewitness is not direct evidence when referring about bigfoot…he’s wrong!”
Some folks think I go off half-cocked when I speak on shows about evidence. But I don’t.
Let’s look at the Wikipedia definitions of evidence:
Direct Evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.
For example of Direct Evidence: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who testifies that he saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime, or a forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim both give circumstantial evidence from which the defendants’s guilt may be inferred.
In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come though any sense, including touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)
Circumstantial Evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.
Real evidence, material evidence or physical evidence is any material object, introduced in a trial, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics. Physical evidence can conceivably include all or part of any object.
Corroborating Evidence is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition.
An example of Corroborating Evidence, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile Y, another witness, testifies that when he examined X’s car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. Or there can be corroborating evidence related to a certain source, such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects.
– Source: Wikipedia
I suggest that anyone so outspoken as this gentleman, make sure they understand the definitions of testimonial evidence before spouting off that I am wrong.
These are principles I’ve learned since my college days, as I took criminal justice with a business law minor. Not only that, but in my career path I took for seventeen plus years, evidence wasn’t something anecdotal, but a practical application used almost every day.
Keep warm everyone!!!
Till Next Time…