A Question of Proof: DS caught on tape

[John21]

Suppose you are on a jury and David is on trial for armed robbery.

The prosecution presents as evidence a high-resolution videotape showing David robbing a store. There's no other evidence, but experts have been brought in to show and compare images of David and all agree it was him.

The defense on the other hand says that David was playing in a poker tournament at the time of the robbery, and produces dozens and dozens of witnesses to support their claim. He has no other means of defense.

So as human beings, how are we to vote? Do we value objective verifiable evidence over subjective and collaborated testimony?

[felson]

There is reasonable doubt here. Therefore, not guilty.

[keith123]

are the witnesses all degenerate gamblers?

[Piers]

Photo evidence no good, how about genetic? He cut himself getting in. Does David have an identical twin?

Or is that amendment invalid as its imposable.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose you are on a jury and David is on trial for armed robbery.

The prosecution presents as evidence a high-resolution videotape showing David robbing a store. There's no other evidence, but experts have been brought in to show and compare images of David and all agree it was him.

The defense on the other hand says that David was playing in a poker tournament at the time of the robbery, and produces dozens and dozens of witnesses to support their claim. He has no other means of defense.

So as human beings, how are we to vote? Do we value objective verifiable evidence over subjective and collaborated testimony?

[/ QUOTE ]

What people say is almost irrelevant, so I voted guilty. But I would actually vote not guilty, because I don't want DS in jail, even if he did commit a crime.

[luckyme]

I answered not guilty in the legal framework.
A gun to my head answer, if I have sufficient confidence in the tapes authenticity then I would say "He did it" ( actually even in the court setting if the confidence level was high enough).

At some stage of tape confidence the eyewitnesses become irrelevant.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

DS would explain how it was DS who done it and not him.

chez

[ShakeZula06]

DS can do no wrong, not guilty.

[RayBornert]

the probability of producing an effective cgi outweighs the probability of organizing a conspiracy to lie.

however, the probability of producing a david disguise to use at the table while the real david was robbing the store might be greater than the chances of an effective cgi.

when the evidence is equal on both sides, you must favor innocence.

ray

[MelchyBeau]

so he was in a poker tournament, but there is no film of this tournament? Did the security cameras break down at a casino?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Suppose you are on a jury and David is on trial for armed robbery.

The prosecution presents as evidence a high-resolution videotape showing David robbing a store. There's no other evidence, but experts have been brought in to show and compare images of David and all agree it was him.

The defense on the other hand says that David was playing in a poker tournament at the time of the robbery, and produces dozens and dozens of witnesses to support their claim. He has no other means of defense.

So as human beings, how are we to vote? Do we value objective verifiable evidence over subjective and collaborated testimony?

[/ QUOTE ]

What people say is almost irrelevant, so I voted guilty. But I would actually vote not guilty, because I don't want DS in jail, even if he did commit a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny...I figured this was plenty of reasonable doubt, but i would actually vote guilty because I DO want DS in jail. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Siegmund]

Well, OK, we've got fairly well substantiated claims that (someone who looked like) DS was in two places at once. Only one of them really was him, obviously. What other evidence do we have? Is his voice on the tape, for instance? The state is going to have to make some kind of argument about why the one at the convenience store is the real one. If the defense can show an IRS form DS signed for his tourney winnings, or even a valet parking stub for DS's car, should pretty much get him solidly off the hook. The fact the one in the casino was playing competent poker is it self some significant circumstantial evidence it's him - would the lookalike ALSO be convincing at the poker table?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
DS would explain how it was DS who done it and not him.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And then ask, "do you know why?" /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[MaxWeiss]

I think you two (Ray and Melchy) have the right idea. We must attempt to figure out which is more likely, the tape being false, or the organized testimony being false. I'm sure some experts on CGI and on psychology and other subjects could be brought in. Honestly though, without further evidence, I would say not guilty because even with people's capacity to remember wrong, if all these people INDEPENDENTLY came up, without hearing other's testimony, and said they saw him there, the likelihood of them all being wrong seems to be less than the likelihood of somebody making a fake tape. There is clearly enough "reasonable doubt" and innocence must be the choice.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
...if all these people INDEPENDENTLY came up, without hearing other's testimony, and said they saw him there...

[/ QUOTE ]

NH

[arahant]

Reminds me of a case from maybe 15 years ago in Denver (I think). Guy 'allegedly' robs a bank...all sorts of pretty compelling evidence, but he had like 4 different 'alibis', which were all mutually exclusive. He got off.
(yeah, i know...good story /images/graemlins/tongue.gif )

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
There is reasonable doubt here. Therefore, not guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

First reply nailed it. Why is there a thread after this?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
if all these people INDEPENDENTLY came up, without hearing other's testimony, and said they saw him there, the likelihood of them all being wrong seems to be less than the likelihood of somebody making a fake tape.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether they hear each others testimony isn't a key factor, their opinion on whether they saw him would be formed before that. For their testimony to be solid we need to know that they didn't hear any comments from others at the tournament perhaps when the allegation hit the news, but possibly even before. "Hortense, I thought I saw DS at the tournee... wasn't he at table 7 in the morning?"
That's one of the main ways the potential false memory would be built.

luckyme

[Mickey Brausch]

If we don't have to deal with Chezlawish doubts /images/graemlins/smile.gif about the veracity of the tapes, the accuracy of the equipement or the testimony of the experts, then there can be no doubt that David's poker friends are lying and he robbed the store.


I hope the argument doesn't get bogged down on such irrelevancies.

[fun160]

[ QUOTE ]
however, the probability of producing a david disguise to use at the table while the real david was robbing the store might be greater than the chances of an effective cgi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be easier to have the guy in the disguise robbing the store? Wouldn't it be harder for an imposter to fool his friends as a poker tournament? Why in the world would he hire a double and rob a store? If someone is smart enough to hire a plausible double, wouldn't they also be smart enough to wear a mask? Isn't it much more likely he's being framed rather than using trickeration to set up an alibi?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]

First reply nailed it. Why is there a thread after this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Social norms. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[evil twin]

I can't believe 1 in 5 people are voting guilty.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
We must attempt to figure out which is more likely, the tape being false, or the organized testimony being false.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're moving goalposts. The jury can only convict if they have proof beyond a resonable doubt. So even if it's more likely DS did commit the crime, that doesn't equate to conviction.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We must attempt to figure out which is more likely, the tape being false, or the organized testimony being false.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're moving goalposts. The jury can only convict if they have proof beyond a resonable doubt. So even if it's more likely DS did commit the crime, that doesn't equate to conviction.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree.

It's probably better if we remove the scenario from the purely legalistic frame the OP placed it in. We should simply enquire about what we believe to be true, the tapes or the testimony of David's friends.

This is how we should relate this to the discussion about the verity of Christian claims, such as witnessing Jesus alive after the Crucifixion.

Mickey Brausch

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We must attempt to figure out which is more likely, the tape being false, or the organized testimony being false.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're moving goalposts. The jury can only convict if they have proof beyond a resonable doubt. So even if it's more likely DS did commit the crime, that doesn't equate to conviction.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree.

It's probably better if we remove the scenario from the purely legalistic frame the OP placed it in. We should simply enquire about what we believe to be true, the tapes or the testimony of David's friends.

This is how we should relate this to the discussion about the verity of Christian claims, such as witnessing Jesus alive after the Crucifixion.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. I re-read the OP and to this question:
[ QUOTE ]
Do we value objective verifiable evidence over subjective and collaborated testimony?

[/ QUOTE ]
My answer has to be yes and I can't see why anyone would say no.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
I re-read the OP and to this question:
[ QUOTE ]
Do we value objective verifiable evidence over subjective and collaborated testimony?

[/ QUOTE ]
My answer has to be yes and I can't see why anyone would say no.

[/ QUOTE ]I should add that I'm almost fully convinced, on the basis of what I know, that O.J. Simpson committed those murders. Nonetheless, if I was a member of the jury that tried him, I would most probably have voted to acquit him.

[mindflayer]

This is a STAR TREK episode..
Kirk is shown by computer records to have made and error in judgement during an Ion storm causing the death of one of the crew members.
Spock is brought as a witness and even though he did not witness the event personally , Spock says that the recording is in error because Kirk cannot make this type of error because he "knows" Kirk.

Robbing a bank = -EV ..
if its -EV you must aqquit!

[Hoover]

Why would DS rob a store? BUSTO?

[Jackal69]

[ QUOTE ]


Robbing a bank = -EV ..
if its -EV you must aqquit!

[/ QUOTE ]

[Shooby]

If DS is in jail, that puts a damper on new poker books. Therefore, NOT GUILTY.
Shooby

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I re-read the OP and to this question:
[ QUOTE ]
Do we value objective verifiable evidence over subjective and collaborated testimony?

[/ QUOTE ]
My answer has to be yes and I can't see why anyone would say no.

[/ QUOTE ]I should add that I'm almost fully convinced, on the basis of what I know, that O.J. Simpson committed those murders. Nonetheless, if I was a member of the jury that tried him, I would most probably have voted to acquit him.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wouldn't your reason be that the objective evidence isn't verifiable? I assume that if you removed the possibility of police tampering, you would convict him, right?

I mean...bloody size 12 bruno magli footprints?

[catalyst]

With a high-res video showing DS robbing a store, and all experts on the matter in agreement it is in fact DS, I vote guilty.