beastie wrote:Witness testimony is practically worthless. There have been many studies done that demonstrate how unreliable eye witnesses are. The public has the impression that, for example, in a court of law, an "eye witness" to the crime is the best sort of evidence, but it's not. It's the circumstantial evidence that is more reliable.
So you say. In reality, and speaking as one who has tried dozens of cases in many jurisdictions, judges and juries credit direct testimony (witness testimony, things said in contemporaneous documents) much more significantly than circumstantial evidence. That does not mean that circumstantial evidence is of no value; it has its place and I use it all the time. But, the proof in the pudding of the weakness of circumstantial evidence is the effort the judges put into trying to convince juries to rely upon circumstantial evidence; most states have jury instructions telling the jury that circumstantial evidence is just as good as direct evidence. Such instructions and efforts would be unneccessary if, as you say, circumstantial is more reliable. It isn't.
Circumstantial evidence of a Book of Mormon peoples includes tree of life motifs in mosaics on temple floors; earthen defense works as described in the Book of Mormon; art work depicting the presence of pre-Columbian bearded white men, and the garbled myths of white visitors. Direct evidence is Joseph Smith's testimony.
I don't think there are very many people who give a whole lot of credit to the circumstantial evidence, but millions who credit Brother Joseph's testimony.
rcrocket