From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:06:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:   
   > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:22:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant    
   >  wrote:    
   >    
   > >I’ve been learning that.   
   >    
      
   Ben ignores the below. Of course.   
      
   Where judged *credible*.   
      
   Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible, especially when   
   eyewitnesses contradict each other. It’s up to the trier of fact (typically   
   the jury) to make that determination in a criminal or civil trial about what   
   eyewitnesses are credible and    
   which aren’t.   
      
   The Commission found them not credible. They said that.   
      
   That doesn’t make them liars, as you claim.   
      
   You have reached a different conclusion, fine. What makes your opinion more   
   valuable and accurate than the determination by the Commission, most of whom   
   were lawyers with years of trial experience (Earl Warren, for example, was a   
   prosecutor in California    
   before he became a judge).   
      
   By all means, share your experience in American jurisprudence so we can judge   
   who is better qualified to make that determination about which witnesses are   
   credible and which aren’t.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)