Do we know anymore at 60 years?

[Royell Storing]

The character of a witness is but one item to consider when deciding whether or not to believe any one aspect of his account.

I have seen a plethora of lame excuses for why people refuse to believe the evidence. I suppose we can now add “spidey senses” to the list. 

However, if I ever want to get dismissed from jury duty I will be sure to use the “spidey senses” routine. I am sure that one will do the trick..

     We are talking about witness credibility. Whether to believe a witness or not, ultimately comes down to your "life experience". This is why people are judged by their "peers", and not a computer or somebody with an IQ of 180.

[Charles Collins]

     We are talking about witness credibility. Whether to believe a witness or not, ultimately comes down to your "life experience". This is why people are judged by their "peers", and not a computer or somebody with an IQ of 180.

And I will repeat the point I made to Fergus O’Brien:

There is no requirement that a witness account HAS to be judged either credible or not credible in its entirety. It is quite common that a witness remembers some aspects of an event correctly but other aspects incorrectly.

[Royell Storing]

And I will repeat the point I made to Fergus O’Brien:

There is no requirement that a witness account HAS to be judged either credible or not credible in its entirety. It is quite common that a witness remembers some aspects of an event correctly but other aspects incorrectly.

    I believe You are referring to a witness simply being "mistaken", vs a witness with "Character" issues.  There is a big difference between "Fallible" vs "Credible". 

[Charles Collins]

    I believe You are referring to a witness simply being "mistaken", vs a witness with "Character" issues.  There is a big difference between "Fallible" vs "Credible".

A witness can have character issues and still be credible. There are many factors involved in deciding whether or not to believe certain aspects of a witness’ account. Character is only one of the factors that should be considered.

[Royell Storing]

A witness can have character issues and still be credible. There are many factors involved in deciding whether or not to believe certain aspects of a witness’ account. Character is only one of the factors that should be considered.

    Even a Serial Killer does Not kill every single person they meet. Bearing this in mind, would you choose to chum around with a Serial Killer even though they do not Kill everyone they come into contact with? To a far lesser degree and with the "character" issue in mind, would you trust the testimony of a "Jailhouse snitch"? 

[Fergus O'Brien]

Perhaps the reasons why someone (either LN or CT or whatever, it doesn’t matter) would believe part of a witness’ account, but not believe another part of the same witness’ account, were not fully explained to you. Maybe you didn’t ask for their reasons. Or you are simply ignoring those reasons and trying to imply that they are using faulty logic. Remember that a jury is instructed that they must consider all of the evidence. While I agree that a forum isn’t the same as an online court room, I think that the application of some courtroom practices makes sense in our judgements as to what we think happened. After all, those practices are in place to help insure a fair trial takes place.

i am not implying faulty logic on the part of LN .now i have spoken with LN who were reasonable enough in their approach , that is to say they were willing to debate , and do so in a friendly manner. but in my experience that is a rarity , i can probably count these LN cases on one hand . and as i believe it was Royell  who pointed out there is a difference between fallible and credible . all humans err , its part of being human .a person simply shown to have been in error does not lack credibility . However if a person embellishes , deceives or lies they at best lack credibility and at worse lose any credibility they might have had . i am talking about witnesses now , not anyone on this site .

but we must have good and valid reasons for dismissing any witness . LN are far too quick to dismiss any witness who is problematic to their stance .of course some witnesses do have credibility issues , some have been discussed recently here such as Jean Hill , and i understand the reasons why . so my point is that LN seem to feel that they are the ones who decide what witness is credible OR NOT and whether evidence is credible or not . when an LN says there is no credible evidence that differs greatly from there being NO EVIDENCE . and yes a witness MAY be accurate and truthful and also simply err . and a witness may be truthful in the majority of what they say , but then embellish or even lie . and if so whether it be here or in a court of law i believe the same question should be asked . IF THEY EMBELLISHED OR LIED ABOUT EVEN ONE THING CAN /SHOULD WE TRUST ANYTHING THEY SAID ? . and if we whether CT or LN are applying levels and standards to decide credibility of witnesses , well we MUST apply those same standards equally across the board . meaning if an LN says for example that a witness lied once so they are not credible , that that same logic applies to their witnesses .

[Charles Collins]

i am not implying faulty logic on the part of LN .now i have spoken with LN who were reasonable enough in their approach , that is to say they were willing to debate , and do so in a friendly manner. but in my experience that is a rarity , i can probably count these LN cases on one hand . and as i believe it was Royell  who pointed out there is a difference between fallible and credible . all humans err , its part of being human .a person simply shown to have been in error does not lack credibility . However if a person embellishes , deceives or lies they at best lack credibility and at worse lose any credibility they might have had . i am talking about witnesses now , not anyone on this site .

but we must have good and valid reasons for dismissing any witness . LN are far too quick to dismiss any witness who is problematic to their stance .of course some witnesses do have credibility issues , some have been discussed recently here such as Jean Hill , and i understand the reasons why . so my point is that LN seem to feel that they are the ones who decide what witness is credible OR NOT and whether evidence is credible or not . when an LN says there is no credible evidence that differs greatly from there being NO EVIDENCE . and yes a witness MAY be accurate and truthful and also simply err . and a witness may be truthful in the majority of what they say , but then embellish or even lie . and if so whether it be here or in a court of law i believe the same question should be asked . IF THEY EMBELLISHED OR LIED ABOUT EVEN ONE THING CAN /SHOULD WE TRUST ANYTHING THEY SAID ? . and if we whether CT or LN are applying levels and standards to decide credibility of witnesses , well we MUST apply those same standards equally across the board . meaning if an LN says for example that a witness lied once so they are not credible , that that same logic applies to their witnesses .

I think you are trying to simplify and generalize a process that isn’t conducive to either one. Each aspect of a witness’ account should be considered individually.