Evidence to Convict?

[The Grand Nudger]

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).

I told you that such a crime with -no- forensic evidence is impossible..because it is.  I told you that a crime in which the available evidence points to no one in particular is not a crime in which anyone in particular should be convicted, because it isn't. You can't manage to respond to that, and so..like your own example, you seek to make changes.

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.

LOL, still bitching about people adding things? No one adding a thing, you omitted whatever you found convenient, until it wasn't convenient.

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.

I guess that puts you in the dedicated liar category rather than the useful idiot cohort, but we already knew that, didn't we?  You see, we have -evidence- of your motivations and reliability as a witness on your own behalf. You routinely shill for christ, routinely get caught shilling for christ, and routinely deny that you were even shilling for christ, while you shill for christ.

This isn't even the first time you've shilled for christ -in precisely this way- on the boards.