Do we know anymore at 60 years?

[Royell Storing]

   Attempting to "lift" only favorable portions of a individual's testimony or their story as told, is a blatant attempt to deceive the audience. An act such as this is the work of a Charlatan. Some of us know which shell the pea is under, but many do not. This being the case, those attempting such hoodwinking merit being publicly tarred and feathered on this Forum. 

[Charles Collins]

   Attempting to "lift" only favorable portions of a individual's testimony or their story as told, is a blatant attempt to deceive the audience. An act such as this is the work of a Charlatan. Some of us know which shell the pea is under, but many do not. This being the case, those attempting such hoodwinking merit being publicly tarred and feathered on this Forum.

As can be seen in the typical jury instructions I posted earlier, the jury is the judge of what they think is believable and what they think is not believable. Present the witness accounts and apply reasoning for how much of it to believe. However, the most important aspect is:

It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took before being accepted by the parties as jurors, and they have the right to expect nothing less.

https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf

[Royell Storing]

As can be seen in the typical jury instructions I posted earlier, the jury is the judge of what they think is believable and what they think is not believable. Present the witness accounts and apply reasoning for how much of it to believe. However, the most important aspect is:

It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took before being accepted by the parties as jurors, and they have the right to expect nothing less.

https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf

        Judging the character of a witness is not solely based on "evidence".  Know it or not, "Life experience" plays a major part in every decision we make. This is where "spidey senses" kick in.

[Charles Collins]

        Judging the character of a witness is not solely based on "evidence".  Know it or not, "Life experience" plays a major part in every decision we make. This is where "spidey senses" kick in.

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..

[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.