Evidence to Convict?

[Pat Mustard]

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?

Even without meaning to the cops could poison all their testimony. For example you could have one person with a deep interest in seeing the s/o charged. Put all witnesses in one room fo an hour before taking statements. If he argues long enough, loudly enough and confidently enough he could persuade the rest to go along with a story of the events that nobody witnessed and which didn't happen.

This kind of effect has bern shown to happen in experiments, with only a minority being willing to go against a developing consensus even when they know it's wrong.

Also I'd like to point out that if RR ever sawTwelve Angry Men this thread wouldn't exist.