Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

I assume for the sake of the argument, that for some reason the injured party isn't available as proof that someone was really injured. In that circumstance, I would not convict. I need more than a story that something happened before I'll vote to deprive you of your freedom.

If the injured party IS available as proof that someone was actually interested, we're no longer relying solely on eyewitness testimony, are we?

That would have been a follow up question, if their are answers that didn't already preclude it with this scenario.  In the case above, you do have physical evidence that there was an assault.   But what if it was just extreme verbal abuse, or sexual assault, that doesn't leave any physical evidence.  And all you have is witnesses to the crime. 

It is my understanding, that this issue came up a while ago, at an atheist convention.  Where verbal and sexual assault where committed.  It is also my understanding, that this happened in an elevator with only one person's word against the other.  It caused quite a dispute, and caused some people to change their opinions. 

J. Warner Wallace was a cold case homicide detective.  He reports to winning a case, with no physical evidence.  It was a husband and wife.  They didn't even have a body, she was just missing. The case was cold for a number of years.   They won the case, and after sentencing; the man confessed to the crime.  He also reports that it was a short deliberation by the jury. On the other hand, he also reports winning cases with no direct witness testimony, and only circumstantial evidence.

It's not so black and white, and I think that this view is rather unique to the atheist community.  I asked the question to see just how unique.