Evidence to Convict?

[Amarok]

Yes, but doesn't tell who did it?

Generally speaking, it does...but if it didn;t, then we have a "reasonable doubt" and a presumption of innocence.  I expect this to fall on deaf ears, being that you're fully onboard with lynching at a fundamental level - it;s not surprising that you would accept it elsewhere and elsewise.

Even the addition that everyone's fingerprints are on it doesn't rescue your poor attempt. Is everyone right handed, like you?  Is everyone the same height and build as you?  You see..they can determine a hell of alot about an attacker by the wound.  Who was in the spray pattern of the blood that busted out from the poor douches head when you bashed it in?

You made explicit reference to a situation in which there could not possibly be a dearth of evidence.  Any attempt to minimize or alter the intial scenario to reduce that evidence will inexorably lead to a situation in which the only reasonable conclusion would be that a crime was not committed..because such a crime would be fucking impossible.  What is the value of that testimony, then?

As i said he will keep changing the narrative to suit his agenda rather then let it stand on it's own .  Because it can't . And his ignorance of forensics just compounds this and produces the need to keep making stuff up. To a point were the crime is indeed impossible or at least extremely unlikely . It reminds me of Carl Sagans invisible dragon . Were the person keeps saying "but it's an inaudible dragon" or " it has no smell " or "it does not eat" .At some point were free to say the dragon is not there.