Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

Not adding new "ifs".  The description, that there was no explicit physical evidence which pointed to any particular person was there from the beginning. And it's also the point of the question.

Ah.  What you have there is a straw man -- in the case of a physical assault, there would almost certainly be some physical evidence.  Without a victim or evidence that there was an actual set-to, the police would have nothing to go on and wouldn't be able to file charges.

That does appear to answer your question -- "No, statements of alleged witnesses are in themselves not enough to go on."

There was a victim, in the original description.  And he is getting worse unfortunately.  

Are you saying, that if I have "my people " make the body disappear, that the numerous witnesses who had seen the body (police, doctors, and others), would have no evidence that there was even a crime?  I'll instruct them to burn down the hospital to make sure there is no physical evidence left behind.  People can even see them do it.  They can even tell them exactly why it is being done, and by whom.   If there is no physical evidence which ties back to them then they cannot convict me of either crime.  And best of all anybody who says that I did it, is irrational basing their opinion on the claims of alleged witnesses and hearsay?

---

Yes, and the testimony is the evidence of the act.... correct?

No. The injured victim and the chair used to bludgeon him are the evidences of the act.

Yes, but doesn't tell who did it?

---

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?

Are you trying to change the scenario to not deal with a conclusion based primarily on witness testimony?

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.

Are you saying that there is evidence that I did it?