Evidence to Convict?

[Amarok]

Thanks,   I did miss that part if Astreja was trying to change things though.
However if the fingerprints don't conclusively point to me as the attacker, then of what evidence are they?

You keep on adding new "ifs" to the equation.  Let's say for now that they are your prints, and that they're placed on the parts of the chair that you were holding onto when you assaulted the victim. In the presence of other testable things, for example blood from a head wound where the chair leg struck the victim, it's making a rather convincing case against you.

I see no comparable evidence for the foundational claims of Christianity, just hearsay recorded more than a generation after the events they describe.  To put this in perspective, the gospel of Mark (thought to be written circa 66-70 CE) is analogous to someone writing an account in 2017 of miracles of The Force that occurred in an obscure theatre on the Star Wars opening weekend in 1977.

He will keep changing the rules and adding to the narrative in an attempt to push it towards his preferred conclusion. And any other evidence will be dismissed via what if . I say we play this game too.

---

If we can demonstrate a head wound . Place your finger prints on the weapon . Put a motive to the attack . and establish you had the opportunity to attack. Oh and the fact the claim is totally mundane and fits our knowledge of attacks . Then we have a strong case for gulit. This idiot honestly thinks we need witnesses to convict people. Behold crime investigation of the 18th century . You ever wonder why they never caught jack the ripper. My I also point out the law is never 100% certain only reasonably certain.

If on the other hand you claimed a angel  flew down and vaporized a person and some people saw it . That going to take a lot more evidence.

If we have camera footage and fresh DNA that places the suspect 500 miles away from the scene . That the person is crippled and can't lift the chair . All the witnesses were strangers but the victim was a jerk and thus people had a prejudice against him . The question of why he would attack a random stranger. Would all have to be factored into a bayesian formula.

And before Road complains I can play the what if game too. This is why possibility fallacy idile speculation is useless .