Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

---

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?  


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

---

YOU CAN'T FUCKING KNOW THAT! So you can't even be given the benefit of the doubt in this preposterous hypothetical.

Are you saying, that there is no way to rule these things out (at least to within reason)?

And the fact that you consider the null hypothesis an 'opinion' tells us everything we need to know about you and how you come to believe what you do. Congratulations.

No... I find that using the null hypothesis to conclude that we always have good reason to doubt an interesting opinion.