Re: Wow, looks like Oracle and ICANN could find some board material here.
This is what I don't understand about the criminal justice system. Once a verdict is reached then by definition surely either the prosecution or the defence witnesses must have been lying?
Suppose I'm accused of carrying out a robbery. In court the prosecution witness says "Yes, I definitely recognise him as the man who robbed my premises".
The defence witness says "It can't possibly have been my old mate qwertyuiop, we were at my place having a few beers and catching up on what we've been doing".
If I'm found guilty then my mate who gave me an alibi must have been lying - I couldn't have been doing the job and been at his place at the same time. If I'm found innocent then the prosecution witness is lying because he said he recognised me when in fact he couldn't possibly have - I was at my mate's house.
Obviously this won't apply to every witness: if a crime has genuinely taken place then somebody saying that the goods were there at close of business but missing the next morning is stating a fact, but otherwise both sides can't be telling the truth when their truths are contradictory.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
