(August 3, 2017 at 11:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:RoadRunner79 Wrote: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.
RoadRunner79 Wrote: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 other alone' any more.
Yes, and the testimony is the evidence of the act.... correct?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
