Evidence to Convict?

[Amarok]

Here is why I considered the 11 eyewitness accounts as evidence. The evidence may not be enough to convict without video, fingerprints, DNA, etc. but still qualify. Roadrunner stated these people were strangers. The scenario might be a crowded cafe. The witnesses are strangers to one another. What collaboration might there be between them? What would be the motivation for 11 strangers to bear false witness against the attacker?

Strangers to each other AND the victim AND the suspect? Even then, I explained why fear could be an irrational motivator to lie or skew the truth. Maybe they're all sociopaths and just want to frame an innocent person whether they're genuinely guilty or not. It's still shite.

11 witnesses could each has there own bias against the accused or motive to lie . But even if they did not no evidence no case so I don't think there motives matter . But as I have said before this is nothing like the bible so why are we still treating it like it is. Considering we have counter evidence that renders the bible accounts moot.