In a court of law telling the truth is not considered enough.
To present testimony which might lead to conviction, a witness is required to swear before God to tell.....
1.THE TRUTH
2.THE WHOLE TRUTH
3.NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH
Now, stop and ask yourself whether those 3 designations tell us something about how serious a matter it is to establish a fact.
Coloring testimony by omitting uncomfortable details is eliminated. Spinning one's version of events is prevented by constraining the testimony to the reality and not the perception.
In other words; a true fact can only be represented when it is stripped of opinion, bias, personal feeling and conjecture and must be a direct experience rather than hearsay.
Now, with the above in mind, ask yourself why testimony is not permitted when it is:
1.Hearsay
2.Opinion
3.Exaggeration
4.Intuition
5.Heartfelt conjecture
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Answer: we cannot know something based on opinion the way we know it when we experience it directly as a witness to the event itself.
Fact: Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable testimony.
Why?
Officers of the law and the courts will tell you that people's recall of events when under stress is largely a matter of their imagination.
Now, put yourself on a jury where the testimony is not direct testimony, but, only the repeating of somebody's assertions pertaining to events thousands of years previous.
Do you see what "belief" really is?
BELIEF:
Naive acceptance without proof of another person's biased, imaginative, gullible version of a non-witnessed event.