Originally Posted by EireannGoddess
More obfuscation; first a crime has to be provable before 'intentional evidence' can be admitted - ie, proof - eyewitness testimony does not fall under the category of 'intentional evidence'.
This is a lie. There is no such requirement.
With exception to kangaroo court trials such as the Nurnberg Trials, intentional evidence is very specific and eyewitness testimony is considered unreliable and conviction cannot be based solely upon eyewitness testimony.
"Intentional Evidence" is commmonly used in cases concerning monetary fraud, which is a crime but certainly not a "holocaust" of epic jewish proportion. Especially since most accused of monetary fraud, wherein intentional evidence is used are jews themselves.
Not even common law suggests that eyewitness evidence is to be relied upon as the sole source of evidence.
This is a load of bullshit. Are you making this stuff up or what? Who, how, what !! What the fuck are you studying? Legal systems of wonderland?
Show me any law under any judicial system in which it is explicitdly stated that a criminal conviction can not be atained via eyewitness testimony alone?
C'mon Bitch, prove it!!
Shit, for that matter, tell us the legal definition of intentional evidence.
Here, I'll make it easy.
Federal Rules of Evidence (2007)
Show us the legal definition of intentional evidence under the fedearl rules and how it is applied in criminal courts.