Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

Who said that the claim wasn't investigated.... other means of corroboration, simply didn't result in any definitive evidence.

So you're now going to allow things into your story that you didn't say in the first place? You seem rather inconsistent on that point. Is there an actual injured party in evidence?

It is my hypothetical.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to clarify when people are trying to evade the point, which is a question about witness testimony apart from anything else.
In the scenario I gave, I think there was an injured person, as well as the chair.  What if I only robbed him (took the $500 in cash that he had).  A number of independent people witnessed it, and again mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture.

Are you saying there is no way, based on the testimony of others alone, that there would be reason for a conviction of the crime?  

Now I didn't get into making up individual detailed testimonies for each person, with background information and such.  And I agree, it's going to depend on the details (some of which may give reason to doubt).  But what if you do not have any good reason to doubt.

Due to presumption of innocence (or the null hypothesis), I always have a good reason to doubt.

Thanks for the opinion... I find it interesting.

---

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.

Feel free to "play this game too"; however I would ask that you make a new thread.  

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.

No I don't think that.  And I agree, we don't need absolute certainty.