In an effort to make this into a GQ answer, though, I think there ahould be some focus on the discussion that’s been tossed around above: the distinction between “evidence” and “proof”.
The terms have been used as though there is some rigorous distinction to be had, some quantity of evidence that becomes “proof”. But unless we define what’s meant by “proof,” we’re not helping clarify the discussion at all.
In the U.S. legal system, for example, a civil case may be won by “preponderence of the evidence.” The credible evidence must show, when considered in total, that the plaintiff is more likely than not to have demonstrated his version of the facts is true.
A criminal case requires a much higher standard. A criminal must be found not guilty if the prosecution merely proves its case against the accused is more likely than not. In order to reach a guilty verdict, the criminal fact-finder muct be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt. No reasonable interpretation of the evidence can support anything but guilt; if the evidence supports two inferences, one of guilt and one of innocence, then the finding must be not guilty, even if the guilty inference is more likely.
So as you toss around “evidence” and “proof” - ask yourself what standard of proof you mean.
Sorry, it just gets frustrating to see that most people know only that Sadaam is a madman, but don’t know of his ideological motivations and how they relate to other world events.
Just a few days ago, an acquaintance who says he served in Operation Desert Storm claimed to have seen the infamous plastic shredder. I suspect he was simply repeating a story, but who knows? As someone said, Saddam is certainly capable of using such devices.
Bricker, the lawyer to who I defer in legal matters said
And in what way is this particular allegation not admissible in a court of law? What grounds are there for excluding it?
To save you some time… it is admissible. I’m very curious to hear why you thought it wouldn’t be.
I guess my point was, if someone goes to a prosecutor and says “xxxxx happened” and the prosecutor decides that it doesn’t warrant being brought to trial, then I would assume that that person’s testimony to the prosecutor wasn’t “evidence.” If the prosecutor chose to bring it to trial, then eyewitness testimony would be evidence. It might or might not be accepted as “proof” by a jury or the judge.
I didn’t make myself very clear, and you were right. I guess I don’t know the legal meaning of evidence. When does an allegation become evidence?
*Please don’t take my obtusiveness to mean that I don’t believe the witnesses to the shredder story.
Is there any way to approach this from the other end? Are there “plastic shredders” capable of accommodating a full sized human body, wholly annihilating it, and strong enough that it could do 30 in a row?
Upon googling around a bit for “industrial plastic shredders” it seems my question may be a bit silly, as there are really large industrial shredders capable of mashing up a body (follow links here for pics of large shredders.) But are such super large shredders for plastic? Why was the “eyewitness” told the body parts were going to be fish food, when the shredded corpse parts were surely not that small. If there are any dopers with industrial shredding experience, I’d like to hear what they have to say.
Saddam’s regime is guilty of countless atrocities, but I, like Lissa am a bit skeptical of this one. :dubious:
An allegation becomes evidence when it is admissible in court.
For example, let’s say Person A makes the following allegation :
“Person B told me that he saw Saddam feeds bodies into shredders”
That allegation would not be admissible due to the evidentiary rules against hearsay.
Now Person B makes the allegation :
“I saw Saddam feed bodies into shredders”. This allegation may be used as evidence as it is eyewitness testimony. Of course its use and probative value will depend on a range of factors that Bricker outlined above.
Person C makes the allegation :
“Saddam told me that he feeds bodies into shredders”. This allegation may also become evidence, as there are exceptions to the rule against hearsay, including a rule that admissions made to a third party may be admissable.
That is a pretty simplistic rundown on hearsay. Of course there are further exceptions and rules which someone with more litigation experience than I could explain.
Of course it does. It’s just “inadmissible evidence.” Surely you agree that, say, evidence tossed out due to a bad search is still properly labeled “evidence.”
“Evidence” is just something that makes a given proposition more or less likely – even slightly so.
The statement “Bob told me he saw Saddam put people into shredders” is evidence. It is inadmissible due to the hearsay rule, but it is still evidence. It makes the proposition that Saddam does indeed shred people slightly more likely. Granted, it isn’t terribly strong evidence (which is part of the reason the hearsay rule exists), but it is still properly called evidence.
Now that tidbit of evidence alone (assuming admissibility for the moment) is probably not enough to prove one’s case by a preponderance of the evidence, and certainly not enough to prove one’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. But that’s a question about the relative strength of the evidence, not one of the characterization of this particular data point as “evidence.”
Well, the shredders I’ve seen for trash and recycling do chop the objects dumped into them into fairly small pieces (a couple of inches square), and if one dumps the pieces into the ocean, then it’s reasonable to assume that they’ll be fish food.
There is also much difference between an “allegation” and “evidence.” Evidence is what backs up an allegation, and may or may not lead to proof. Or is there a difference between legalese and epistemology?
I realize that this thread is an ancient zombie, but many people probably don’t know that those stories were proven to be false. The woman who made the claims was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and had been coached to make her story more believable. It was pure propaganda. Not that the reality was all that much better, but like they say, in war the first casualty is the truth.
The story I recall at the time was if Usay was feeling kindly that day, he would feed the guy in head-first.
Of course, there were also the stories o him hamstringing sports stars who lost (apparently he was the guy in charge of the national sports organization), and other “interesting” stories.
Sadly, it’s hard to say what’s true or false because people can be imaginatively sadistic. However, stories circulating during the run-up to war, with no prior documentation, probably are fabrications.
(The trouble with live wood-chipping I would imagine is that it would be incredibly messy…)
Who writes these headlines??
Not a shred of evidence* The Spectator. February 21, 2004.
The opening of Fargo claims that it is based on a true story. It isn’t. Nothing at all in the movie is fact-based.
Which isn’t to say that nobody has ever been fed into a wood chipper. While Fargo may be complete fiction, a woman named Helle Crafts was murdered by her husband, who then used a wood chipper to dispose of the body.