Re: [RC] [RC] reply to Bob Morris - Truman Prevatt
Ed,
One person seeing another cutting trail is not a "preponderance" of
anything - least of all evidence. If I were close enough to see her cut
trail - then I have a self interest in the outcome and by that fact am
not a creditable witness.
One endurance rider in the same competition seeing another give their
horse a shot falls in the same category. They are both competiting in
the same event and by bearing witness to the fact of the injection and
her DQ gives me an advantage.
When a witness can materially gain from the out come they are not
creditable.
As an RM I have had people cut trail and I have caught people cut
trail. None of it was based on any witness - except to alert me that
there might be a problem. All the eveidence was gained from the arrival
times and out times at the vet checks and who they passed and didn't. I
couldn't DQ them since there was some trail vandalism, but they only
got completions. That could have not been done on the basis of "he said
she said" from one other rider.
Truman
Ed & Wendy Hauser wrote:
"... 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
