Evidence to Convict?

[Astonished]

The amount of pages you've wasted tryng to maintan the credibility of testimony when the very standard you're referring to absolutely does -not- accept testimony in a vacuum as sufficient to convict is staggering.

If all the prosecution has on you is someone saying you did something - it won't even make it to trial.  It doesn't even meet the basic requirements for litigation, you can forget about a conviction.  This isn;t an opinion, or a philosophic position on the nature of evidence, or even debatable.  It's a cut and dry answer to your question.

Witnesses are not called to -be- the facts of a case, but to support the facts of a case as established by the defense or prosecution.  The police take those statements for precisely the same reason.  They hope to find a narrative between respondants that matches the evidence available.

Were you here earlier or did you just pop in? I honestly don't remember, but I feel like up til this point, no one's been directly and overtly saying exactly that except me. So if he tries to give you bullshit for an answer too, he'll be proving he's just making a straw man out of me.