What constitutes evidence to establish proof of identity? What evidence can be used to detect an imposter? First, some basic information on evidence and proof.
ev⋅i⋅dence [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc⋅ing.
–noun
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.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
proof [proof]
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
...
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind...http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Evidence is gathered, in some cases by forensic scientists, which can then be offered as proof.
Forensic science (often shortened to forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system. This may be in relation to a crime or a civil action. Besides its relevance to a legal system, more generally forensics encompasses the accepted scholarly or scientific methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event, or an artifact, or some other physical item (such as a corpse) are ascertained as being the case. In that regard the concept is related to the notion of authentication, whereby an interest outside of a legal form exists in determining whether an object is what it purports to be, or is alleged as being.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science
[Please support this blog ~ click on our sponsors' ads. Thanks!]
Photographs, voiceprints, fingerprints, and other methods of capturing unique identifiers can be used to establish identity. Here is US federal law on that:
Photographs, voiceprints, fingerprints, and other methods of capturing unique identifiers can be used to establish identity. Here is US federal law on that:
[T]he term "record" means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, ... other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph... 5 USCS § 552a(4).
[T]he term "means of identification" means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any--
...
(B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; ...
United States v. Hawes, 523 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. S.C. 2008).
... [T]he district court found that duty titles were not comparable to captured immutable characteristics such as finger or voice prints or photographs. The district court reached these conclusions because an individual's duty title changes over time, because multiple people can concomitantly have the same or similar duty titles, and because each individual has predecessor and successor holders of the same duty titles. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the district court. In circumstances where duty titles pertain to one and only one individual, such as the examples of identifying particulars provided in the statutory text (finger or voice print or photograph), duty titles may indeed be "identifying particulars" as that term is used in the definition of "record" in the Privacy Act. For the reasons detailed by the district court, however, the [**9] duty titles in this [*188] case are not "identifying particulars" because they do not pertain to one and only one individual.
Pierce v. Dep't of the United States Air Force, 512 F.3d 184, 188 (5th Cir. Miss. 2007).
The legal standard in USA is evidence is admissible if it is relevant. From the Federal Rules of Evidence:
Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"
"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible
All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority...http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm
Comparing and contrasting photos, videos [see comps] & voice prints of Paul and Faul establishes that Paul was imposter-replaCIAed in 1966. Please see the following articles for more information:
__________________________________________________
|
Tina Foster is the author of
Email Tina at faulconandsnowjob at hotmail dot com.
As a retired cop, I can tell you this much...There is probable cause to believe that Faul is an imposter. Forensics always have the final say. You just can't physically alter the shape and size of the human skull'or for anadult to grow 3 inches in one year.
ReplyDeleteJack, I think you refer to this ?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/FromOthers/Paul-McCartney-Italian.html
The main focus concerns the diagnosis of hereditary diseases
ReplyDeleteEvery paternity establishes a special relationship. This not only means a lifelong emotional bond, but also includes extensive and ongoing legal obligations. As large as the scope of that relationship is, the questions can be just as excruciating if there are any doubts about the Paternity Test, DNA Relationship Test and Identity Proofs. Unlike the mother, as a general rule, the father is naturally often left with his suspicions unless he decides to take a paternity test.