Re: [RC] [RC] reply to Bob Morris - Ed & Wendy Hauser
Eyewitness testimony is evidence period.
Whether it is sufficient evidence will ultimately depend on all of the rest of
the evidence found and presented by both sides. If the only evidence is
one person saying "he did", and another saying "I didn't" (remember since this
is the only evidence, we have no way to give either person more credibility) the
decision would probably be to the defendant. You can't have a
preponderance if things are equally divided.
In the case of an endurance ride, where no money
rides on the outcome, talk of someone having enough interest in the outcome to
lie is mostly, if not all, a smoke screen.
This little thought case has been chosen to be an
extreme example. In the real world, the RM usually can find more
witnesses, testimony that the trail cutter was suddenly ahead of another rider
etc.
If things got to the P&G, all of this stuff
would be taken into account in the name of due process. P&G would then
render their decision based on what they consider the proper standard of
evidence. I'd bet that it would be preponderance of evidence, not either
beyond reasonable doubt, or beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Ed
Ed & Wendy Hauser 2994 Mittower
Road Victor, MT 59875
