Evidence to Convict?

[Mister Agenda]

However if the fingerprints don't conclusively point to me as the attacker, then of what evidence are they?

The fingerprints are evidence that you held the chair, which is independent corroboration that supports the claim that you used the chair in the attack. It's not conclusive to you being the one who committed the assault, but it supports the claim (especially if no one else's fingerprints are on it), as does the victim. Frankly, without an injured party, we can't even be sure anyone was hurt.

As an aside, analysis of the testimony depends on a 'sweet spot'. Too much similarity and it was likely rehearsed, too little and we can't really piece together what was supposed to have happened.

And testimony is like an hypothesis: if it's nontrivial and consequential, you should test it before you accept it.

---

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?

Without cross-examination, we'll never know.

---

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.

So, would I be correct in assuming that, if no empirical evidence is found, collecting testimony would then be somewhat of a waste of time because its function, to corroborate the actual physical evidence, cannot be performed in the absence of said evidence?

I'd say it's more the other way around. You look for corroboration (or dis-corroboration) of the testimony. Each individual testament is a claim, but comparing the claims to each other can yield contextual evidence relevant to whether the person is more or less likely to be lying or misremembering or mistaken. Finding other witnesses who can confirm or disconfirm other parts of their story can be useful, like someone seeing one of the testifiers walk into the place a particular time. You can determine other particulars, like if any of the testifiers have relevant criminal records or histories. The tone of the situation changes pretty significantly if one of the testifiers turns out to be involved in organized crime and witness intimidation.

The idea that naked testimony would legitimately be accepted as sufficient evidence to convict rather than a claim to be investigated is troubling. Even without physical evidence (and why would there not be physical evidence?), you need to know who the people testifying are, what their biases might be, what motives might they have to lie, how reliable their recollections are in general, and so forth.