>> The evidence should have been looked into regardless ("The judges must make a thorough investigation..."), as you see in the second passage (that you conveniently failed to quote). I am not diminishing Daniel's importance in that specific instance in the least, I am saying that this adds no precedence that did not already exist. <<
Like I said, the prophet Daniel did not surpass Mosaic law, but rather demonstrated a techniques of investigation which had not been common: cross-examination and crime-scene investigation. Without demonstration of the need for these practices, even the judges in Daniel's time failed to discover the truth. (You'll note that Daniel was not a judge at the time.)
>> Being a Protestant, I do not acknowledge the extra verses in the Book of Daniel. <<
My point exactly. But aren't you even curious why this one chapter was excluded, suddenly, in the 16th century, when it had been included for 1800 years?
I am. I have been doing my own research on the matter. I am open to any objective data (or reasonable close to it; I am reasonable; we all have our biases) you can provide.