No winner yet in 'Doonesbury' Bush search

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

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

The same reason it isn't very reliable in any case.


All cases are the same? I think there's a significant difference between a
case where a witness is asked to identify a person they've never seen before
and a case where there asked to plave a coworker at their workplace.



One person can relate his testimony inaccurately (intentionally
or otherwise).


Where is there room for error in this case? What reason would this witness
have to lie?



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"?


How many are needed in this case?

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


One person can relate his testimony inaccurately (intentionally
or otherwise).


Where is there room for error in this case?


Incorrectly remembering what he saw (dates, people, milieus, etc.).

What reason would this witness have to lie?


Partisanship?


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"?


How many are needed in this case?


How about we start with at least two people and take it from there?


--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Incorrectly remembering what he saw (dates, people, milieus, etc.).


He doesn't have to remember specific dates, just place him at Dannelly
within the proper time period.



Partisanship?


I think you've nailed it. Anybody that does place him at Dannelly is
obviously a partisan and thus not a credible witness.



How about we start with at least two people and take it from there?


Two partisans are no more credible than one.

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


Incorrectly remembering what he saw (dates, people, milieus, etc.).


He doesn't have to remember specific dates, just place him at Dannelly
within the proper time period.


Nobody said anything about specifc dates. I think year and approximate
month (or even season) would suffice. That coupled with the instances in
which the person claims to have seen Mr. Bush.

Tell me, why has nobody else in the unit come forward. I sure as well
won't ever forget those I served with both on active duty and active
reserves. Surely, more than one person can step forward.


Partisanship?


I think you've nailed it.


I probably have.


Anybody that does place him at Dannelly is
obviously a partisan and thus not a credible witness.


Your conclusion; certainly not mine



How about we start with at least two people and take it from there?


Two partisans are no more credible than one.


Nobody is accusing the person claiming to have seen Mr. Bush multiple
times of partnership. However, partisanship should be considered...when
it's only one person coming forward (months after the fact). Even if two
people wanted to play such games, their two testimonies can be played
side by side for examination and it probably wouldn't be too hard to
then credit or discredit the entire premise.



--Mike

--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.

In article ,
Michael Wise wrote:

In Mr. Bush's case, has anybody else from his former AL unit stepped
forward to confirm the "sighting"?

A few so far, and there have been minor discrepancies in their stories,
which has been a major point of contention on his service record.

Hell, I'd have trouble remembering a lot of the short-term guys I served
with, and that was only *20* years ago.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

The same reason it isn't very reliable in any case.

All cases are the same?

No, some are worse than others. It's *impossible* to get 100% reliable
witnesses.

I think there's a significant difference between a case where a
witness is asked to identify a person they've never seen before and a
case where there asked to plave a coworker at their workplace.

But that's for short-term situations. Can you remember everyone you
went to school with in high school? Can you even remember all of your
*teachers*?

Now, put yourself in the place of some old guy who was the rankingh
officer at some NG base 30 years back, and consider how hard it would be
to remember with any certainty if some young guy went through your unit
for a few days over a couple of months.

One person can relate his testimony inaccurately (intentionally
or otherwise).

Where is there room for error in this case? What reason would this witness
have to lie?

Political, monetary, or notoriety. For example.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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