Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

I think the original scenario is wrong, if we're supposed to use it to make a case regarding eyewitness testimony for things Biblical. 

Boru

Nope... was never the intention to make a connection for things Biblical.  Not even really about only a court case.  Just testimony as evidence.

---

You don't have to do anything.  Two of us disagreed and said it was evidence.  A few more said that it was evidence, but not enough. And without counting, I feel fairly safe to say that no evidence was in the majority. 

People get away with shit all the time through lack of evidence. I gave a perfect real-life example myself. At the same time, assessing objectively events that one was not present to witness based solely on witness testimony is, as we have seen, nigh on impossible to the extent of being dangerously unreliable.

Yes, there are times where people get away with something because of lack of evidence (despite some peoples protest that this was an impossible aspect of the scenario). And it is interesting, that apart from the video which they failed to collect, you don't think the testimony of the one who called the police would have made any difference.  Even if thirty people had witnessed and attested on your behalf, that it could not be objectively assessed, and useless towards your case.

Keep in mind, that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, based on just one testimony which only briefly described the event.  

---

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.

No... not taking anything away from the matter.   It was just a re-cap.
I think that it is intriguing , that you said the only people who know the truth  of the matter is the other witnesses and myself.  Can the witnesses not transfer this truth of the matter to others through testimony?  I would assume that if there was DNA evidence, I don't witness these facts first hand, but rely on the testimony (either documents or expert testimony) in court to relay this information. Why can't the same be done with testimony?    Are you saying that my testimony in confessing to the crime would be evidence, whereas anyone else who saw is somehow not evidence?  Couldn't someone just bring up the false convictions based on confessions?