Evidence to Convict?

[Mister Agenda]

So it's been two days now... the police have to release me, without any evidence.  The victim was in critical condition, but now he(and the hospital) have been cleansed of any physical evidence. Just in case.  There are even more witnesses, but they have no facts or information with which to indicate that I am guilty of wrong doing as true.  They are pissed... but it must be irrational, since they have no facts with which to reasonably believe that I did anything. 

See you tomorrow.

So you're taking back the physical evidence that there was a crime and all the evidence that supported the witnesses being accurate yet unrehearsed, independent, and trustworthy; and holding up under cross-examination?

Congratulations, you've boiled it down to actual naked testimony via establishing a scenario that can scarcely ever apply in the real world, and it isn't enough to convict.

What's your point? That you should be convicted anyway? The only people who can reasonably be said to know the truth of the matter to a degree that would justify conviction in court on a criminal charge are the witnesses and you. Presuming you actually are guilty, you should confess; or your accusers should pursue a civil case.