The next time you read the article, you may want to add a superscript to your cover page so that we’ll know what’s going on.
If you’re in the market for an attractive cover, this is a good place to start. A superscript may only cost you the $10 to $15 you’d spend on a full-page ad, but it will make your article look more professional and give it more of a “read” factor. This is especially useful if you have a large number of articles on your website.
What’s a “superscript” you ask? It’s the little line that, like a superscript in a book, is underneath the title of an article. In our article’s case, it’s right before the word “researcher”: “Cameron Seavey, a leading researcher in the field of quantum gravity, was able to observe the effect of a hypothetical black hole’s spin on its ability to absorb light.
If you’re wondering whether superscripts are even legal, the answer is no. In the United States, they are not allowed and most people don’t even know they exist. However, there are a few jurisdictions that do allow it (e.g. Australia, New Zealand, and Norway) but not the United States.
In the United States, superscripts are allowed if your proof is presented “in writing” and that your written proof is “sufficient to show that the witness actually saw the subject.” The reason for this is that in the UK, it is illegal to have a photograph of a witness and so a witness is not required to testify.
In the United States, it’s not the person who actually saw the person, but the person who did. This is true if the person who saw the person was a “young, innocent-looking, and not in a good mood” who has a criminal record, but if the person saw the person, they could have been arrested for aggravated rape and other crimes.
The question is whether the person who saw the person was able to identify them, and whether this was able to be proved by a witness.
It all comes down to the fact that when a witness does not speak, a jury cannot hear. In a court of law, there are no witnesses. Even if the witness is a person who was convicted in a court of law, and the testimony that she provided may have been heard in a trial, it is not the same as seeing the person. No witness can identify a person, and no witness can see the person, so the person cannot be prosecuted.
In essence, the witness can only be asked to identify a person based on a single fact. The only difference between a jury and a court of law is that the jury can see who someone is; the court of law can see who someone is, but they cannot see the person.