Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

What if the eyewitness testimony contradicted the physical evidence to the benefit of the assailant? Let's say the chair has the supposed assailants fingerprints, the victim has a gash on his head, and the accused has the victims blood splatter on his shirt. However, 11 unrelated eyewitnesses can place the accused at a place and time that makes his participation in the crime impossible. Does eyewitness testimony have any validity then? Perhaps the accused touched the chair the day before, he helped the victim who had a bloody nose. The assumed victim has a personal beef with the accused.

I think that it can.  The issue is that that the physical evidence only tells you a few things; from which, you have to connect the dots.  Here it tells you that the accused had touched the chair, has some motive (note this isn't physical evidence), and was in contact with the victims blood to get it on his shirt.  There could be issues, depending on the details of the confessions in your scenario, for instance, do the witnesses statements testify that it was definitely the accused who was at a different place at the time, or just someone who looks very much like him.

---

Road, out of genuine curiousity, if this discussion has nothing to do with biblical claims, then what?  Do you just have a personal, pet interest in the subject?  Are you perhaps considering law school?  😉

It is a claim, that I find odd and out of the norm, which I have mostly run into only while talking to atheist.  I had tried to discuss it in the past; however as it was here, that can prove difficult, with people who appear more intent to disrupt discussion rather than participate in it, and appeal to motives and such.  This is a principle which has implications outside of the God or religion and so I wanted to investigate the reasoning behind it further.  I think that in some extreme versions, it is outright untenable, and leads to absurdity. 

However as sometimes is the case, our views and/or definitions we are starting from; may lead to misunderstandings, which make discussion difficult.  We are arguing about the directions, when we are starting from different locations, and wondering why they don't match up.  So this thread wasn't about discussion or debate, but about understanding what the view of others are more accurately and how they are applied.  And possibly to find out how popular this view was (among this generally atheist community); although I don't know if there was enough participation to get a good idea on that. 

In the past, the discussion has been about looking at what the others arguments where for this claim (and giving my own).  It was about the why, this thread was more about the what is believed.  Part of an ongoing attempt to look at this rationally and to see if there is good reason, and if I may be wrong in my views.  To have a moment of introspection, and perhaps encourage the same in others.  Just two different ways of going about that.   Also, for those who where questioning the placement of this thread under the life sciences category.  I had basically come down between psychology and philosophy.  Seeing as how this wasn't about debating the epistemology of testimony, it seemed like a social science inquiry more aptly applied.

---

I wouldn't consider a vague claim, as witness testimony.  Witness testimony is about sharing what was seen, heard, or otherwise experienced (smells, touch... etc)  The judgement of that information is still up to the one who it is transmitted to. He didn't give any information, other than he thinks I'm a liar. The basis for that conclusion is yet un-evidenced. 

Of course, I was assuming that it was something in recent context and immediately pertinent as well.

I would consider witness testimony a "vague claim" right until it is supported by evidence. especially when the testimony is about things that go against the usual way nature works.
My wife may say "I saw your friend down town today" and I may think this is likely as my friend has been known to visit the town BUT my wife has mistaken a man in a similar jacket for me so is not the most reliable witness. I would have to ask my friend if he was in town at the same time to verify it.

Witness testimony is not evidence on its own.

Yes, it can be vague.  But can also be specific.   What if she had talked to this friend and could verify that it definitely was him.