No winner yet in 'Doonesbury' Bush search

"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

"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 ,
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:

"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...
different points of view about Kerry's Vietnam record (ranging from hero
to nearly a war criminal).

Yea, I wonder how many other opinions Kerry will have of his war record.
;-)