Skip to main content

View Diary: The Disturbing Obliviousness of Kossacks About an Impending Execution: An Innocent Man Will Die (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wrong again. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sberel, wiscmass

    Nobody is suggesting that it is "improper to base a case on witness testimony."  All I have said, wiscmass has said, other lawyers have said is that eyewitness testimony is known to be unreliable, so any case that is based SOLELY on eyewitness testimony is on shaky footing from the get-go.  Second, there is a difference between eyewitness testimony and "witness" testimony.  Lots of types of witness testimony (e.g., testimony from a witness to the signing of a will that she actually witnessed that signing, testimony of a housekeeper that she repeatedly "witnessed" the husband and wife she worked for arguing with each other) is reliable.  Eyewitness accounts of crimes are entirely different. Third, and finally, read the diary again: there are no longer ANY witnesses (save the sole person who probably who committed the crime and has confessed to doing so) who "say the man is guilty."

    Jeepers; there is enough reasonable doubt to drive a truck through and you keep harping on these points.  

    1-20-09 The Darkness Ends "Where cruelty exists, law does not." ~ Alberto Mora.

    by noweasels on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:22:26 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  There are two witnesses (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liquidman

      It's also not clear tha that the person has ccommitted the crime has "Confessed" to doing so. It's an allegation made by the defendant's lawyers. Whether the evidence really shows this is not clear, unless you have access to information not provided in the diary. In any event, legally speaking, ONE eyewitness's testimony can be sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. It depends upon how credible this person is.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site