Donate SIGN UP

Courts And The Supernatural

Avatar Image
joggerjayne | 18:26 Tue 08th Oct 2013 | News
38 Answers
Why is it described as "bizarre" when a Court considers evidence obtained from spirits at a seance?

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/10/04/amanda-knox-retrial-takes-supernatural-turn

Surely the supernatural is part and parcel of Court proceedings.

As the author Peter James has pointed out, witnesses who speak in Court are asked to confirm their belief in the supernatural by taking an oath to a supernatural being called God.

Surely Courts should more often whip out the ouija board and look for evidence from the spirit world?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 38rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by joggerjayne. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Must admit, he has a point. Time to sit back with the popcorn. :o)
Fgs! How many times has God been a successful witness in Court? Let's hope the spirits still have accurate, written proof of their communication and submit them to the Court in time.
Question Author
I don't think the spirits submit evidence.

What they do is guide the witness, and communicate through the witness, rather as God guides witnesses to tell the truth.

And, presumably, if they don't tell the truth, smites them with a big stick or something.

I can't see any problem with a Ouija Board in Courts.

Swear by Almighty God, blah blah, yada yada ... now, would you please place your hand on the upside down glass on the board in front of you ...
Question Author
In fact, it seems like a natural progression ...

Swear your oath to a supernatural being, and then move straight on to the Ouija Board while you give evidence.
How do we believe what the ouija board "told" them? Still cheaper for a spirit to guide the witness than hiring a Lawyer;-)
Can of worms undone here....owwwwwwwwww
Question Author
Well, the Court's evidential system is based on the premise that people tell the truth when they are influenced by a supernatural being.

That's the whole point of making them take the Oath.

So, if the supernatural influence was extended a little bit ...
they swear by God, not to God. They swear to the court. They are not asked to state a belief in God, though they may if they wish (in this country) take an irreligious oath.

But you know that.
Sounds to me like that recent shooting, where the suspect policeman just had a feeling that if he looked behind that wall, he'd find the murder weapon ....
Yes, I'm not religious. But that makes no difference -it is illegal to lie under oath anyway.
Question Author
The Court asks witnesses to swear ... on a Bible ... by Almighty God ... while happily accepting that the witness has no need to believe in God ... and thus no belief in the sanctity of the Oath ...

... and still thinks the Oath makes a difference?

Maybe they should just dispense with the Oath?

As to an affirmation ... that's the one where fraudsters, thieves etc, just "promise" that they are telling the truth, right?
It makes no sense, but as it is perjury to lie in court anyway, swearing on a bible is an unnecessary extra.
Question Author
Although, oddly, isn't it only perjury to lie under Oath?
witnesses have to be given a reminder that lying in court is illegal, that's all the oath/affirmation do. Otherwise they might try to dodge a perjury charge by saying they didn't realise.
Interesting thread JJ. The oath certainly seems to be an anachronism. Unless you have faith of course. Which raises an interesting point...if you believe in God why not believe in ghosts?
I think the two go together, zacs. You wouldn't believe in ghosts unless you believe in an afterlife?
Question Author
I think, if you believe in God, then you have to believe in ghosts.

Surely one of the forms of God is the Holy Ghost. It would be odd if God decided to manifest Herself as a ghost, when there was no such thing as ghosts.
Will this supernatural being be told to remove the veil and let the jury see his/her face? And... how do we know that the ouija operator isn't her great -aunt Bessie.
Masquerading as Christa Ackroyd.
Exactly zacs, that woman gets everywhere.

1 to 20 of 38rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Courts And The Supernatural

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.