Still more on Prius runaway

[salty]

That particular incident was a lot different than the ones where the car ranaway at highway speeds. In that case, it was someone moving from a parked position. BIG diff.

[Doug Miller]

4

You forgot #4:

Dumbass driver stepping on the wrong pedal (as has been confirmed in the latest case in New York).

According to the NHTSA, "Information retrieved from the vehicle's onboard computer systems indicated there was no application of the brakes and the throttle was fully open."

[mm]

I was acknowledging my mistake. I wasn't arguing with Doug. I can see that my sentence could be read both ways, and I think because there is so much disagreement between consecutive posts on Usenet, maybe that's why you thought I was disagreeing too.

[mm]

When I read this, I thought you were basically agreeing with me. I guess not.

I think Salty's question was intended to be, of those who are guilty, what percentage say they didn't do anything?

No such physical evidence found in their lab. There is witness evidence some of which is explainable only by saying the witnesses are wrong or that there is an electronic problem in their cases.

There seems to be a tendency in may areas to only consider physical evidence, but that's a narrow usage and not the one used in court nor in much of real life.

Evidence:

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects RHD

[clare]

Empirical evidence, or possibly circumstantial evidence, but no scientific evidence. There has been no CONFIRMED evidence, or proof, that any defect exists in the electronics or programming that makes the system succeptible to any outside interference, or that there is any electronic fault that by its very nature makes the system liable to cause either lack of braking power or episodes of uncontrolled accelleration.

NONE. Toyota engineers are still working at it, trying to find ANYTHING that could explain the alleged behaviour of their vehicles.

Circumstantial evidence - based on circumstances and assumptions Empirical evidence - based on observations

Neither can be proven. Neither, alone, is sufficient to convict.

[Kurt Ullman]

In the US either alone, if enough of it, is enough to convict. When I was doing fire investigations most convictions were circumstantial (had access, reason, had recently bought gas or had it nearby). Don't think I had one 10 years where we found the guy with the match in his hand as we walked in.

[mm]

The eyewitness evidence IS empirical evidence. Also some of the stuff elsewhere, some tending to show one thing and some tending to show the opposite, including eyewitnesses from other similar incidents, who also say their cars accelerated. RHD: "1.derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

1. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
2. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. "

The scientific evidence you refer to IS circumstantial evidence. In Law, which is the only place I know of that "circumstantial evidence" is used, it is anything other than eyewitness testimony. Despite the movies where someone calls out, "That's all circumstantial evidence" that's what most evidence in court is, and many convictions have only circumstantial evidence supporting them.

The other kind of evidence is direct evidence, which is eyewitness testimony

I didn't need to look this up, but here's a webpage that discusses it.

"Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime"

Nor any CONFIRMED evidence or proof that it doesn't. The two sources of evidence contradict each other, neither is confirmed.

Right, NONE.

A little more below.

That's not true. As I said above, it's a mistaken notion held by many, because of those movies, that circ. evidence is not enough to convict. But many convictions are based only on circumstantial evidence, because there are no eyewitnesses except the defendant, who doesn't admit he did it.

Ask a lawyer, or just look at the evidence offerred in many criminal cases that yield convictions.

But I'm happy we agree I think that witness statements are evidence.

[clare]

OK - when you are troubleshooting something, or reverse engineering something, do you go by appearances??

No. You look for something that you can "prove" - something that can be measured and preferably repeated.

In the case of Toyota uninteded accelleration there has been no measureable, provable, repeatable 'evidence" that there is anything electronic involved - yet.