The law likes eyewitness testimony because juries believe it. This doesn't make it reliable - and in all tests we do it turns out you need pretty complex techniques (cognitive interviewing and such) to get at the real story - though Molly's statement on some science rigged from the get go is relevant, as investigators shape the evidence to make a prosecution much as a clinical trial is affected by pressures to get the drug on the market.
Molly has a point on the need for some practical means of spotting exploitative narcissists. The situation is further complicated by the likelihood that leadership brings this on in people through biological change in the role. Molly generates very different feelings in me than the sort of people you might see on a god channel, or various string-pullers I've had to deal with. Someone (I forget) wrote some very serious stuff about being able to see into the minds of others for real, but the truth is we can't. Physics is now suggesting, perhaps, that a mind of god may be what we are creating as the history and future are written on the expanding 'wall' of the edge of the universe. Maybe we are missing something about our own stage of development? On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 8:26:01 PM UTC, facilitator wrote: > > In a court of law in the United States eyewitness testimony is always > considered evidence. It is incumbent apon the jury to decide if that > evidence or testimony is true or untrue (corrupt). > > If their is written testimony then one can't say, "That is not true", > unless it can be proven otherwise or violates other already substantiated > facts. Even so, the most sort after evidence is eyewitness testimony. >> >> ... > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
