No winner yet in 'Doonesbury' Bush search

In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I'm not certain, but a single guy swearing up and down he saw Mr. Bush
in the squadron is probably not going to persuade many...unless he has
pictures.


No, a single guy swearing up and down he saw Mr. Bush in the squadron is not
going to persuade anyone that has decided Bush wasn't there. As for
pictures, well, obviously any pictures showing Bush serving as required are
recently manufactured computer images.


So then you've seen pictures of Mr. Bush serving in AL? Where might
these pictures be? Come up with them, and $10K could be yours.

Worried about authenticity issues? Most digital photo pros can identify
a doctored image. Heck, even the design interns at the magazines I have
worked at can tell. Just put up the photos or any other evidence, and
you get the prize.



Easy money...eh?



--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

So then you've seen pictures of Mr. Bush serving in AL?


Nope.



Easy money...eh?


Easy money if you just have to satisfy on objective judge. Hard money if
you have to satisfy Trudeau.

In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

So then you've seen pictures of Mr. Bush serving in AL?


Nope.



Easy money...eh?


Easy money if you just have to satisfy on objective judge. Hard money if
you have to satisfy Trudeau.


Do objective judges accept one guy's claim of having seen something as
something even approaching conclusive evidence? An objective judge might
be swayed is two people came forward with similar testimony...but one?


--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Do objective judges accept one guy's claim of having seen something as
something even approaching conclusive evidence?


To the best of my knowledge, yes. Why wouldn't they?



An objective judge might
be swayed is two people came forward with similar testimony...but one?


Why not one? Why would one witness that was in a position to know with
nothing to gain by lying not be believed? How many credible witnesses did
Trudeau require in his initial challenge?

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Do objective judges accept one guy's claim of having seen something as
something even approaching conclusive evidence?

To the best of my knowledge, yes. Why wouldn't they?

Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.


Why wouldn't it be reliable in this case?

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.


Why wouldn't it be reliable in this case?


The same reason it isn't very reliable in any case. One person can
relate his testimony inaccurately (intentionally or otherwise). It's
when you get more than one person to corraborate the testimony that it
starts to shape as something credible. In Mr. Bush's case, has anybody
else from his former AL unit stepped forward to confirm the "sighting"?


--Mike

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.

Why wouldn't it be reliable in this case?

Well, from the point of view of the "Doonesbury" folks, it's because
someone could have paid off the witness, or the witness could just plain
be wrong about 30 year old memories. For a counterexample, the
different points of view about Kerry's Vietnam record (ranging from hero
to nearly a war criminal).

Note also the surprising number of guys who have been released from
prison after physical (DNA) testing showed that they could _not_ have
been the person who committed that crime, after a witness' testimony put
them away.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Do objective judges accept one guy's claim of having seen something as
something even approaching conclusive evidence?

To the best of my knowledge, yes. Why wouldn't they?

Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.

When I've sat jury duty the instructions were to take all testimony
at face value if there was an interpretation of events that allowed it.

In article ,
"John Keeney" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Do objective judges accept one guy's claim of having seen something as
something even approaching conclusive evidence?

To the best of my knowledge, yes. Why wouldn't they?

Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.

When I've sat jury duty the instructions were to take all testimony
at face value if there was an interpretation of events that allowed it.

That's nice, but the footnote to that is that most eyewitness testimony
is extremely easy to disallow.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.