Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

How about this, why don't you break down a hierarchy of what you consider the best evidence and why, what's the second best and why, all the way down to what's the worst and why? That way you might actually convey some information. That statement you made doesn't exactly make anything clear.

Also, I can't believe I neglected to do this sooner, it only just occurred to me; Beep-Beep, what exactly makes you think testimony, eyewitness or otherwise, is of value? Considering I gave an entire litany of why it objectively is not reliable and therefore logically should not be considered valuable, what are the reasons you believe it defies all of those problems to the point where it's actually significant? Just, go on, give it a try. I notice theists aren't generally capable of coherently giving the 'why', but merely the 'what' (and barely coherently there, either).

I don't see it as a categorical hierarchy.  To me, it depends on the circumstances, and how well the individual or collective evidence makes something evident. 
It's really on a case by case basis.  Normally, if we are only talking about a single point of evidence, I don't consider that very good. Different types of evidence can have different limitations, different false results, that may need to be accounted for, and different ways to make sure they are handled properly.

I didn't want to make this thread a debate about witness testimony, and I still don't.  I have given my views before, and made arguments as to why I think it should not be abandoned as evidence. If you would like to make a new thread, I will likely join and discuss.