Evidence to Convict?

[Mister Agenda]

The testimony is good, and shows a reasonable difference, some fairly similar, some from a different perspective who didn't actually seen me hit the person, but seen immediately after. There's no mob boss, or signs of intimidation, that another person did the crime, and coerced everyone into telling a different story.  I was held after the fact, so there is no chance of mistaken identity.    But no other corroborating evidence besides the testimony which points to me.

If you're going to keep adding details, eventually you can get to the point where it would be reasonable to convict. I'll note that you're appealing to things besides their naked testimony, like character evaluation, to get there.

---

Basically is there any way, in which the testimony is considered part of the body of facts and information which indicate that the proposition that I assaulted the other person is true?
Secondly, could this be enough to form a rational conclusion reasonable enough to convict me of wrong doing?

If you find enough evidence to support the testimony, including things like no mob bosses, no relevant biases, the right amount of consistency, AND AN INJURED PARTY, it becomes a claim that has been sufficiently tested enough to make it reasonable to accept, provisionally. The testimony provides the narrative that accounts for the event.

The claim is that you beat someone with a chair.

The evidence is the independent corroboration and appropriate consistency across testimonies of supposed eyewitnesses, and knowledge of the character and reliability of the witnesses. These things are the evidence that supports the claim/accusation. These might support the claim sufficiently to reasonably convict if there is an injured party to present and the details of the claim are otherwise plausible (you're not claimed to have wielded the chair telekinetically, for instance).