Scientific Evidence Always Trumps Eyewitness Testimony

Image result for image of an eyewitness

“Over the last two decades, hundreds of people have been released from prison after being exonerated by DNA testing that was not available at the time of their convictions. In many cases, the conviction was obtained by eyewitness testimony. Nevertheless, when faced with a choice between eyewitness testimony and scientific knowledge, the law goes with the latter. No court has ever considered the possibility that some supernatural event might explain the discrepancy between the eyewitnesses and the DNA.

Even if it could be established that anything in the gospels could be traced back to eyewitness accounts, it is absurd to think that they could be used in a court to establish facts that are contrary to scientific knowledge.”   —VinnyJH57

Image result for image of the resurrection
Should you believe that a first century, three-day-brain-dead corpse came back to life, exited his sealed tomb, and then ate a broiled fish lunch with his former friends solely based on alleged eyewitness testimony?

Image result for image of the ascension
Should you believe that a man in the first century levitated into the clouds solely based on alleged eyewitness testimony?

6 thoughts on “Scientific Evidence Always Trumps Eyewitness Testimony

  1. We learned in the police academy that 5 people standing next to each other watching the same event may have completely different stories. Why witness are always asked about an event separately. So ones account won’t influence another’s account.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Unless they observed an event that defies scientific explanation.

    Like a bona fide physical resurrection.

    Unless you stack the deck to say that even if this truly was observed and happened, it still can’t be believed, because materialism is all that is.



    1. If an alleged eyewitness to a murder claims that the accused is not guilty because he saw the “true murderer”, a ghost, do the killing, that explanation will be rejected, regardless of the sincerity and even the honorable reputation of the witness, if the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (DNA) proves the accused’s DNA is at the murder scene for no other explainable reason.

      Scientific knowledge and evidence ALWAYS trump eyewitness testimony, regardless of the sincerity, reputation, and quantity of the alleged eyewitnesses. And the scientific evidence in the case of the Resurrection is that medical research clearly demonstrates that three-day-brain dead bodies cannot come back to life.

      The disciples saw an illusion: a cloud formation, a shadow, a bright light, or another human who looked like Jesus. They did NOT see a walking, talking, fish-eating corpse. The scientific evidence trumps the eyewitness testimony of very sincere fishermen and tax collectors.


      1. A blood-soaked body is found alongside a highway. There are multiple stab wounds to the body. A murder has been committed.

        Eleven men step forward to the authorities and claim that they all witnessed the crime. They claim that the killer was John Smith—a man who had died three days earlier by public execution at the hands of state authorities; whose death was confirmed by multiple medical authorities and whose body was buried in a sealed, air-less vault. Shockingly, employees at the cemetery had earlier that morning called to report that the deceased man’s vault had been opened and the body is gone!

        However, police investigators have collected DNA samples at the location of the bloodied body along the highway which match a known criminal in the state’s DNA data bank. A search of the known criminal’s home reveals blood stains in the trunk of his car and on his shoes. The blood stains are examined by experts with DNA testing: they match the blood of the murder victim.

        Who will the court believe regarding who committed this crime: the eleven eyewitnesses or the scientific evidence?


  3. A statement from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine discussing just how malleable our memories really are:

    “Eyewitnesses play an important role in criminal cases when they can identify culprits. Estimates suggest that tens of thousands of eyewitnesses make identifications in criminal investigations each year. Research on factors that affect the accuracy of eyewitness identification procedures has given us an increasingly clear picture of how identifications are made, and more importantly, an improved understanding of the principled limits on vision and memory that can lead to failure of identification. Factors such as viewing conditions, duress, elevated emotions, and biases influence the visual perception experience. Perceptual experiences are stored by a system of memory that is highly malleable and continuously evolving, neither retaining nor divulging content in an informational vacuum. As such, the fidelity of our memories to actual events may be compromised by many factors at all stages of processing, from encoding to storage and retrieval. Unknown to the individual, memories are forgotten, reconstructed, updated, and distorted. Complicating the process further, policies governing law enforcement procedures for conducting and recording identifications are not standard, and policies and practices to address the issue of misidentification vary widely. These limitations can produce mistaken identifications with significant consequences. What can we do to make certain that eyewitness identification convicts the guilty and exonerates the innocent?”



  4. It may be true that our legal system has depended on eyewitness testimony to prove innocence or guilt for centuries if not millennia. But that does NOT prove that eyewitness testimony is reliable. This is something many Christians confuse. When it comes to the supernatural claims of the Bible, in particular the resurrection of Jesus, we are not really interested in which side can convince a jury of the veracity of their position. We are seeking THE TRUTH. And if experts have found that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable for ORDINARY claims such as the identification of a murderer, just how reliable is it for EXTRA-ORDINARY claims?

    Read this from a scientific journal:

    IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s