Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed  (Read 24795 times)

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
    • SPMLaw
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #208 on: June 17, 2022, 11:32:35 PM »
Advertisement
What “sheer amount”?

The idea that a few things that aren’t evidence somehow combine to form evidence is frankly silly.
Not only is it not silly, it is legally required.  Judges and juries are prohibited from applying the standard of proof to individual pieces of evidence. They must apply that standard only to the whole of the evidence.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #208 on: June 17, 2022, 11:32:35 PM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #209 on: June 17, 2022, 11:41:35 PM »
Not only is it not silly, it is legally required.  Judges and juries are prohibited from applying the standard of proof to individual pieces of evidence. They must apply that standard only to the whole of the evidence.


Which doesn't preclude that they can't look at the authenticity, validity and credibility of those individual pieces of evidence.

Nobody is saying that each individual piece of evidence has to be conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, but when much of the evidence isn't credible or non-persuasive the whole of the evidence will not meet the standard of proof.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #210 on: June 18, 2022, 12:02:04 AM »
And the things that aren’t evidence at all don’t “combine” in any way.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #210 on: June 18, 2022, 12:02:04 AM »


Offline Paul J Cummings

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #211 on: June 18, 2022, 12:10:33 AM »
Except this isn't a case of Judge or Jury hearing the case.

Not only is it not silly, it is legally required.  Judges and juries are prohibited from applying the standard of proof to individual pieces of evidence. They must apply that standard only to the whole of the evidence.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3604
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #212 on: June 18, 2022, 01:47:08 PM »
Except this isn't a case of Judge or Jury hearing the case.

This is true. But are you trying to imply something with your statement? If so, please spell it out for us.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #212 on: June 18, 2022, 01:47:08 PM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3604
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #213 on: June 18, 2022, 03:02:29 PM »
Who told you it's legally required to combine nonevidence?

Comedy Gold!

 Thumb1:

Who told you there is such a thing as nonevidence? Have you been watching the Dumb and Dumber movie again?

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3604
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #214 on: June 18, 2022, 04:29:01 PM »
nonevidence noun
non·​ev·​i·​dence | \ ˌnän-ˈe-və-dən(t)s  , -və-ˌden(t)s \
Definition of nonevidence
: something that is not evidence
Nonevidence is property that does not appear to have evidentiary value and is not the personal property of an arrestee.
— Joseph C. DeLadurantey and Daniel R. Sullivan

nonevidence
in British English
(ˌnɒnˈɛvɪdəns IPA Pronunciation Guide )
NOUN
a lack of evidence
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers



Dictionary.com:

No results found for nonevidence

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #214 on: June 18, 2022, 04:29:01 PM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7407
Re: David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed
« Reply #215 on: June 18, 2022, 04:56:01 PM »

Dictionary.com:

No results found for nonevidence

Let's analyze this;

You've just been shown information from two dictionaries. You then fail to do your own research, beyond a clearly inadequate source and are apparently sufficiently happy with that, to post an argument for argument's sake (yet again)!

Must be a LN  :D