Evidence to Convict?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

And it's reasonable for anyone else to take the same liberties with the OP that you do, and unreasonable for you to bitch about it when they do.

---

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.

Are you claiming that I have tried to evade your point?

---

In the scenario I gave, I think there was an injured person, as well as the chair.

So you have a victim as well as the weapon, to physically show that someone was injured and that the chair was the instrument of that injury. You have physical evidence that supports the claim that an assault took place. What is lacking is physical evidence pointing to you (perhaps you wore gloves). This is independent corroboration of the part of the claim that asserts that the person was beaten with the chair. Then, with all the other details you added about the impeccable character, lack of bias, and reliability of the witnesses, and presuming the defense gets to cross-examine them; in my opinion, you'd be convicted, because the claim withstood scrutiny proportionate to the seriousness of the consequences.