is eyewitness testimony reliable?
153566
In most cases yes.. but there have been some people who have studied people that witness the same event and they all seem to see the facts differently.. You would definately have to determine if the witness was credible or not.
1175007
More info needed. B/w perpetuate testimony and what?
1044752
No proof is needed friend...to really understand using it and knowing of it...you must really believe in it first. for the sights to be set.
622822
Thou shall not bear false witness
796967
Do you have any witnesses?If so then an attorney will be necessary.
705569
witnesses and plaintiff's medical expert.
148372
there are films, photos, hundreds of thousands of testimonies by survivors and others and the physical death camps themsleves that still exsist... Is that NOT enough evidence????\nonly intolerant hate filled muslims and a handfull of kkk types deny reality
390789
I cannot prove it to be false because I have had a personal experience with the Lord Jesus Christ (see my question: "Have I met Jesus?" to read my testimony). I could not deny His existence as a result. \n\nSome people will say they have a "blind faith" which I also believe but Jesus is not afraid for us to want evidence - in fact He tells us to "Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). He also tells us to: "Prove all things…" (1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV).  Believers and non believers are simply doing what Jesus tells us!  Christians should never be disgruntled when someone asks us to if prove God or Jesus does or does not exist!  \n\nSee also: http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine36&item=1115662606 for 7 further proofs if you wish.
920326
Good...\nMy proof....look into the eyes of a newborn.....
242350
An expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, or profession, or experience, is believed to have special knowledge of his subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely his opinion.
676527
What does the evidence say?
282234
In the federal sector you must have either/or evidence to support the claim, notes of what occurred with questions that have to be answered who, what, when, and how. You should also have a list of potential witnesses. First will come an informal investigation to determine if a formal investigation is warranted. After that there will be a lot of time frames that will have to be met in a timely manner. after that you basically play a waiting game.
272629
Some have exploited these statements to argue their point that the Bible is unreliable or untruthful.\n\nBut, in a court judges WILL NOT BELIEVE statements by witnesses that are TOO PERFECT--without any minor inconcistencies. The judge's conclusion would always be that these statements--even under cross examination--were made up, or were too good to be true.\n\nIn reading contracts and law--w/c by the way the Bible is--we look for other provisions of these documents to really understand the whole thing.\n\nHere is a simplistic example:\n\nStatement (1): "Mike is fat".\nStatement (2): "Mike is thin".\nStatement (3): "When Mike was a kid he got sick with polio which severely affected his feet".\n\nIf you read only statements 1, and 2 you will conclude that these are really contradictory--or inconsistent--statements. But Statement (3) gives a clarification.\n\nSo, the correct conclusion considering Statement no. 3 is: "Mike is a fat man with thin legs". Agree, or disagree?\n\nNow let's go back to the 2 examples in question. Godshew(?) was correct. The case about God's warning to Adam, and his age could be reconciled. According to the apostle Peter's statement--a clarificatory one--1,000 years is just like 1 day to God. So, when Adam died at the age of 930, he died within one day in God's own time frame. \n\nAgain, Jesus did not contradict himself when he said that he and the father are one; and that the father is greater than he is. The apostle John was the one who wrote these statements and so he is the one in the better position to explain this (just like a witness in court). In John 17:20-22 he explains that the father, the son--including the disciples--are one in purpose, one in work, one in mind. \n\nFurther, if you will read John 10:25-33--and NOT just isolate John 10:30--then you will immediately notice that Jesus did not claim to be of equal power, or might, than his father. He and the Father are one in deeds (or works). Ps. read the account carefully.\n\nYou know what the problem is? some try to suit Biblical verses according to their beliefs--just like the ungodly trinity--and not suit their beliefs to what the Bible says.\n\nThis in turn is exploited by those eager to insist that the Bible is really unreliable.\n\nHope this helped a lot of people examine their Bibles closely.
291190
ANYTHING relevent to the case, or the plantiffs credibility and testimony.  You really would have to be more specific.
3108
have you listened to any of the testimony coming out of the trials. take a look at rueters news wire and ask how can he be innocent.
393244
Two different uses for documents in a percipient witness (observing witness) testimony situation.\n\nRefreshing recollection is where you look at something you wrote down at the time, then having refreshed your memory, you testify from your memory. The document itself is not entered into evidence, it is just used to jog your memory. For this to be valid, you need to have (after refreshing) an independent memory of the event.\n\nPast recollection recorded refers to situations where you record present or recent observations. Common examples include on-scene police reports, security logs, etc. It also sometimes includes diaries and journals made some time after an incident, when the memories are still fresh. The difference is that here, even after you've re-read what was written, you still don't have an independent memory of the events in question. There are evidentiary rules about what is allowed, but the basic issue is that the logs themseves are entered as documents, so the standards are higher.\n\nExample: You are a security guard at a parking lot. You watch someone come onto the yard and break a car window. You  scare them off, and immediately write down in your security log what you saw including details. Now, two years later at trial, you are asked what you recall.\n\nFor refreshing recollection, you are allowed to look at the logs, but only to help jog your memory. If, after looking at the logs, you personally still don't remember those details in your own mind, you can't testify from memory. Then the attorney has to try to get the document itself entered, as a past recollection recorded to get around the hearsay problem.
511159
I found this information, but it was in regards to Tennessee. I would imagine that most states have a law likened to this one, which is based on the federal statue. I'm in Louisiana and know that as long as you are a party in the conversation, then it would be admissable.\n\nEvidentiary issues. Individuals and businesses that make surreptitious recordings often do so with the expectation that the recordings will be useful as evidence.  Under Tennessee law, an undisclosed recording you might make would be admissible into evidence so long as a court finds it relevant to issues at hand in the case, and it would also be admissible to show that a witness either lied on a particular point of testimony or made a prior inconsistent statement, or has a bias in the case.  The one requirement is that the "tape recordings (or) transcripts... (are) presented in evidence by (a) witness who was present during their recording or who monitored the conversations, if he was so situated and circumstanced that he was in a position to identify the declarant with certainty."  State v. Jones, 598 S.W.2d 209, 223 (Tenn. 1980).  Now, you can't admit a tape into testimony just to show that a witness is a lowlife, but there are generally a number of ways to get the tape into evidence, though they will require an attorney to know the right way to do so.