Re: [RC] [RC] reply to Bob Morris - Ed & Wendy Hauser
"... One needs
to have evidence in order to issue sanctions..."
I respectfully beg to differ with your
interpretation of "evidence". Evidence is all of the things that are
allowed into a preceding. Eyewitness testimony is one of many forms of
evidence. The due process judgment then is made by considering all of the
evidence presented by one of two standards.
1. In a criminal case it is "beyond reasonable
doubt" meaning as I understand it, evidence that would clearly convince a
reasonable person so that they would not doubt that they had made the right
decision.
2. In a civil case it is "preponderance of
evidence" which as I understand it, means that weighing both sides of the case
as presented the majority of evidence points to the decision.
A true example:
In Hudson, WI a few years ago a woman was reported
as being shot by an intruder by her husband. The police came and
found her dead with a close range shotgun wound. Being good policemen they
suspected her husband.
He later changed his story to say that she had
rigged the shotgun with a string and killed herself. He said he took the
shotgun, and threw it into the St. Croix river. The shotgun was never
found.
He has not been charged with a crime. There
is not enough evidence for a criminal conviction. His wife's relatives
filed a civil suit and obtained a wrongful death judgment, because of the weaker
standards in a civil case.
Now to get back to our visual trail cutting
case. Sure, the RM would look for bolstering evidence. They may or
may not find any. If it came to a protest, it could get down to whether
the P&G committee believed witnesses who saw the cheater, or believed the
cheater who said he/she didn't. Many cases ultimately come down belief in
eyewitness accounts. When this happens the persons deciding the case look
at their estimation of character of the witnesses. Estimations of possible
gain to the witnesses. How true the two stories sound in relation to life
experiences.
Many persons have been convicted of crimes on the
basis of eyewitness accounts, and little supporting evidence. Examples of
this happening are in the paper every year. The most notorious ones relate
to rapists being cleared of old crimes by DNA evidence. I would also be
willing to bet that O J Simpson would have been convicted if anyone had been
found who would say they saw him at night from across the street had
testified.
Ed
Ed & Wendy Hauser 2994 Mittower
Road Victor, MT 59875
