mrdct, on 2011-July-15, 01:26, said:
Well that just defeats your own argument.
An assertion can quite easily be something which "gives reason for believing something". If I were to assert that I am wearing black underwear today, would that give you reason to believe it to be true? Maybe or maybe not, so you might gather some further evidence such as character tesimony to see if I'm an habitual liar or get an affidavit from my wife who saw what I put on this morning. But it's all evidence that you need to weigh-up to establish the facts to whatever level of surity you require. If it's to send me to the electric chair we'd want "beyond reasonable doubt" but if it's to award an adjusted score at the bridge table "on the balance of probabilities" will do fine.
The alternative definition of "statements made ... to support" looks even more like verbal testimony in the form of assertion which, again, are not proof of anything but are nonetheless evidence by any reasonable definition (including Oxford's).
I have all the time stressed the point that it deals with
uncorroborated assertions (statements), and in the question of misinformation with screens that the case is when we have two
conflicting uncorroborated assertions (statements) as to what has actually been said.
How any such statement can then be considered evidence is beyond me.
Of course, in a situation where verbal communication is permissible that is what we can request quoted afterwards, and we shall have to establish facts from judging quotations of such asserted communication. But to call such quotations evidence (unless they are corroborated by other facts or independent witness statements) is abuse of the word "evidence"
And when the regulations prescribe
written communication (as screen regulations do) then a quotation from an asserted verbal statement cannot be allowed to replace the written note(s) as
evidence.
PS.: The other quotation from my Oxford reads:
statements made in a lawcourt to support a case
You "cleverly" deleted the reference to lawcourt and thereby avoided the implication that it applies to witness statements. However, this discussion is in no way about witness statements, it is about
conflicting and uncorroborated assertions on what a player has said.