King Tendulkar Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 DSR Iam not siding with CC here, but it goes something like this 1. Only eye witness no forensic evidence - Admissible and can be proclaimed guilty, and eye witnesses can be subjected to physological eval to evaluate their testimony 2. Only forensic evidence - Admissible and can be proclaimed guilty as long as the evidence is peer reviewable and done according to estabilshed scientific standards. 3. Both Forensic evidence and eye witness testimony contradicting each other - Eye witnesses need to undergo psychological evaluation and forensic evidence needs to be peer reviewed etc, if at the end of this both dont match, and if you have a decent defense lawyer you should expect a hung jury (although juries are unpredictable). But overall proper forensic evidence is given more credibility than eye witness testimonies. let CC answer! My points. Trust me one poster who does not need other posters to fight his fights for him is CC. Where are you CC? Answer my post!
CC1981 Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 CC ' date=' Dsr is right ... Where did you get your facts from ... As for as I know , their is no law which says that forensic evidence is a must for convicting of rape.. heck , people can get charged for attempted rape with no semen involved ...[/quote'] I think you misunderstand me. I didnt say there is any law where forensic evidence is a *must* for conviction. I said that, if in a court of law, you have forensics saying something and eyewitness accounts saying something else, 10 times out of 10, forensics will be given credibility over eyewitness accounts. My whole point is, Sandtest wanted to make extremely serious allegations ( rather rashly, as is his style) and commented about xyz eyewitness testimonials to 'show' how big of a ghaplaa the congressi report is. My point to him was, his approach is wrong : congressi report takes form of an official forensics investigation. It said fire started somewhere in the train due to cooking. Sandy's eyewitness contradiction does NOT stand up as a counter. I dont for a minute doubt our politicians are above this kind of appeasement, but point is, you do not challenge a forensics based report by raising eyewitness account.
CC1981 Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 How do you know what a jury is going to do. 1. This kind of cases do not go to jury- not even in Canada. There is no law saying if you dont have forensic evidence that you cant be convicted of rape. Utter balls you are posting. People have been convicted with a lot less evidence then 10 direct witness accounts of a rape! You are being a pucca idiot ( or as more probable amongst desis- questionable grasp of English) if you derive that form my post. Nowhere did i say forensics is mandatory, what i said is, if forensics contradicts your eyewitness testimony, eyewitness testimony goes out of the WINDOW. Hell, even in your pyaare jury-based US, the judge will TELL the jury to ignore the testimony and if the jury does not do so, declare mistrial. You simply cannot trump a scientific enquiry in a court of law by xyz testimony. You know as well as I know that 10 eye witness testimonies of you raping a chick will have every jury in the western world convicting you! Err perhaps my analogy was a bit poorly thought, but my point was to say if eyewitness testimony says something and forensics rubbishes that, forensics stand. Doesnt matter how many eyewitnesses you raise to the box. That is simple jurisprudence.
CC1981 Posted July 30, 2008 Posted July 30, 2008 Where are you CC? Answer my post! I am neither your servant, nor do i intend to spend every single day on this site.I will answer when i please, how i please or if i please. Nobody is paying me to answer every stupid question here. Take that tone with me again and you will enter my ignore list very shortly.
King Tendulkar Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Err perhaps my analogy was a bit poorly thought, . Victory for dsr. :yay:
King Tendulkar Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 I am neither your servant' date=' nor do i intend to spend every single day on this site.I will answer when i please, how i please or if i please. Nobody is paying me to answer every stupid question here. Take that tone with me again and you will enter my ignore list very shortly.[/quote'] What kind of threat was that. Take that tone again and you will enter my ignore list:hysterical:Priceless:hysterical:
CC1981 Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 Victory for dsr. :yay: Be as childish as you want- my initial point to Sandtest and your idiocy to the whole issue still stands. You havnt been able to refute my principle or my argument, just happened to pick on a side comment thats an illustration. Whopee-****ing ding. Grow the eff up. And if you really wanna be childish, then take this : you wona small sideshow battle but i won the war. :yay::yay:
Recommended Posts