Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

---

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?  It's clear evidence of a lynching.

Conveniently, while your example is not an analog to magic book, your treatment of that example is -exactly- the same as the treatment of magic book.  It makes -many- claims for which the evidence would be overwhelming and undeniable.  There would be evidence laying, literally, all over the globe.  Except...there isn't any at all, and apologetic attempts to make excuses for that reduce the narrative such that they provide direct and demonstrable evidence of a lynching of the truth by a clutch of dedicated liars and useful idiots.

---

Thanks for the reply. I think that it is interesting that you don't believe that there are cases where the forensic evidence doesn't point to a particular person or cannot identify the suspect directly (that such a crime is impossible). Even in the many of the examples you are adding, at best it gives you a general description, which may help support the case, but requires further evidence. That if testimony is the only evidence for a particular person, it is equated to a lynching.

Also, I agree. I'm not trying to make to make an analog for anything in particular. Just a situation where the only or primary evidence is the testimony of others, and there isn't reason to doubt that testimony. I want to learn how various people here think concerning testimony as evidence.