Evidence to Convict?

[Ravenshire]

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?

RR should already know my opinions on testimony, but for those who didn't follow our mostly civil discussion of the topic, I'll state them here. Testimony is fine as evidence, as long as it is corroborative in nature to the physical evidence. Testimony alone should never be sufficient to convict anyone of a serious crime, especially crimes where long stretches in prison or even capital punishment are the possible sentences. Too many innocent people have received convictions when they did not commit the crime for which they are charged.

That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.

There are many reasons I hold this position on testimony that I do, but one (exemplified in chip3's post and bolded by me) stands out above all others. The human mind, especially memory, is simply too unreliable.

Chimp3 stated that RR said (another example of why hearsay is usually denied in court) that the 11 witnesses were strangers. RR said (again the bolding is mine):

A few of us, along with some strangers are sitting in a room...

RR was not describing a room full of 11 strangers and he certainly wasn't describing a situation where everyone was a stranger to everybody else. Here we have an example where only a couple days have passed and the quote is readily available for review. Having people accurately recount what happened months, in some cases years, after the events is expecting too much of a weak tool.

To answer your question directly RR. No, I would not be willing to convict based on testimony alone. If the forensics team is so bad that they can't get any physical evidence of the crime, especially the type of crime you're describing, you probably shouldn't even be arraigned. Held, yes. Arraigned, maybe, but probably no. Convicted, a resounding 'hell no.'

Not trying to pick on you chimp3. Your post was just a handy example of something RR and I discussed in another thread and something that I'm glaringly guilty of as well, though I see that the examples I gave from my own experience and those I gave from a legal case have done nothing to alter RR's opinion on testimony and I can only believe it's because his beliefs rely so heavily on testimony (second-, third-, and fourth-hand testimony [at best] to boot) and little to none on hard evidence.