Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

And anyway, the poll itself is a false dichotomy.  Yes, the testimony CAN be considered evidence but it may not be ENOUGH evidence, by itself, to land you a conviction. 

Do you think it was enough in this case from the information given?  

I agree, it's not always (or even usually) black and white. There may be other evidence which points to a different conclusion to consider. And evidence is weighed for what it tells us. We don't always have all the evidence, that we would like. And the evidence may not be sufficient to form a reasonable conclusion.

So I suppose that there are two questions that are being asked here.

Is Testimony considered in the available body of facts and information which indicates that the proposition is valid?
Can it be sufficient by itself; in a case such as I gave, to come to a reasonable conclusion?

I agree, depending on the details, it may not be enough by itself. Also depending on various situations, there may be times that testimony outweighs other evidence, or vice versa, that the other evidence outweighs the testimony. It's not about a blanket black and white statement.

---

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.

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

I have seen the movie Twelve Angry Men.... it is a favorite of mine.

I also think that you are trying to change things to avoid the scenario again. You are making a case for that which you have no evidence of. It is possible, but is it reasonable, if you have no reason to suspect it? I think that if you include what is possible, then you will need to dismiss everything as evidence.

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.

Could this apply to your view of testimony as well?