Knowing That We Know
Douglas L. Callister October 2007 Sunday Afternoon Session
Years ago a man was accused of a serious crime. The prosecution presented three witnesses, each of whom saw the man commit the crime. The defense then presented three witnesses, none of whom had seen its commission. The simple jury was confused. Based on the number of witnesses, the evidence seemed to the jury equally divided. The man was acquitted. It was irrelevant, of course, that untold millions had never seen the crime. There needed to be only one witness.