Made it to a doctorate without understanding that all people everywhere remember and understand things differently.
Four people are in a car that mildly crashed on an icy road. Ask them independently, after a week, to tell the story of what happened.
PhD people aren’t known for their understanding of social situations.
Maybe it was just a joke
it clearly is, and that’s not why hearsay is inadmissible anyway.
it’s inadmissible because it can’t be cross examined.
I think they mean eyewitness testimony. eyewitness testimony is not actually worth anything because people don’t remember things properly and often the brain will make shit up just to fill in the blanks—especially when it matters. I was crossing an intersection once and was five paces away from a serious car accident and I couldn’t even remember which car was coming from which direction. wild.
that’s another thing, and partly what cross examination is for, but eyewitness testimony is not inadmissible. in fact many trials have relied on a single eyewitness testimony, and whether the jury believes the witness or not.
Car crashes are a joke to you?
I don’t know what a good question to ask is but you seem like you have more interesting things to share on this topic. Would you care to elaborate further?
Nah not really just banging on the point that eyewitness testimony can be garbage because of the way our brains work.
I cannot even explain my colleague on my left’s work to the colleague on my right. I won’t blame the dad here.
I need you to understand that most people just don’t go around talking about other people’s dissertations to other people.
