cutting both ways, as far as i'm saying here, means if witnesses are unreliable AS A RULE, you don't really get to pick and choose when that rule applies
Pr0n;6597469 said:
But how would having a professional take the stand and explain the unreliability of witness testimony, which you agree with, be trying too hard?
Sure you can. You don't have to discredit all witnesses, just the ones that are hurting your case. Of course you have to prove they are confabulating which isn't always the case.
And that day could have been yesterday if you'd just explain it.
Sure you can. You don't have to discredit all witnesses, just the ones that are hurting your case. Of course you have to prove they are confabulating which isn't always the case.
your argument was specifically that witness testimony supporting Zimmerman was considered inaccurate/unreliable because it was witness testimony. while i do agree with that, the PROBLEM is that you're still saying "witnesses i don't agree with should be considered unreliable! other witnesses are fine!"
Pr0n;6599470 said:
And that day could have been yesterday if you'd just explain it.
Why would prosecution deliberately hurt their own case? That's nonsense. If the defense wants to try and discredit witnesses that help the prosecution they are free to do it, but choosing to hurt your own case is bad business.
