I had thought that this disagreement about the existence or nonexistence of direct inference had been put to bed. But perhaps I am wrong. There is today a controversy still among psychologists and other serious students of perception about the existence or non-existence of direct perception. See, e.g., Claire F. Michaels and Claudio Carello, Direct Perception (1981), which is available at http://ione.psy.unconn.edu/~psy254/MC.pdf. (Professors Michaels and Carello call the study of direct perception the "ecological approach.")
What do you think, Gentle Reader?
Consider this question: Even if there is such a thing as direct human perception of the world, is there much or any direct perception or direct inference of or from the evidence presented in legal proceedings such as trials?
My question more precisely stated: Even if direct perception or direct inference occurs in trials, is it ever the case that direct perception or direct inference suffices to establish a legally-material factual proposition in a judicial trial or other legal proceeding? Er, ..., you can perhaps see which way the wind is blowing in this writer's brain.