Evidence to Convict?

[Astonished]

Beep-Beep's disingenuous approach to the entire topic owes itself to his ignorance about how things actually work. Testimony is unreliable, period. How would one verify one's testimony is accurate? Physical evidence might help but would the testimony of OTHERS be sufficient? And how would one verify THEIR testimonial claims regarding the first person's testimony are accurate? It becomes a circular fucking argument. Testimony, by itself, is worthless as evidence. Even in the presence of empirical evidence, at best it could only serve as a weak connective tissue between two or more pieces of physical evidence that would equate more to a set of vital organs, if they don't contradict or have no relevance to the actual case or evidence. So even if it could prove some value in that limited set of circumstances, the lack of ability to verify its accuracy independently (with no evidence to bolster the testimony on its own) casts major doubt on its actual utility even then. So in the hierarchy of evidence, it's as close to a zero value as anything could get. That is objectively, factually true, so it does not hinge on anyone's fucking opinion, which I pointed out in the very first response post, and this lying, deluded turd still claims to be looking for others' 'opinions' on it. I'm not the only one who's pointed this out to him, either, so even though this thread started out as obnoxious trolling, at this point it's become phenomenal trolling. We're talking shit-eating Doofus Rik level trolling.