Evidence to Convict?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

The valid reasons that mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture are additional evidences for the veracity of the claim/testimony.

---

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?

Given the physical evidence that the crime actually occurred, the investigation that found evidence to support the character, reliability, and lack of relevant bias among the witnesses; the plausible similarity of the testimonies, and their testimonies surviving cross-examination by the defense; I think conviction would be reasonable.

It's your scenario, and it doesn't seem to actually involve 'based on the testimony of others alone' any more.