Evidence to Convict?

[LadyForCamus]

So, just to summarize: RR starts a thread presenting us with a scenerio in which he picks up a chair with his hands, and hits a man over the head with it in front of 11 people, yet by some miracle leaves not a trace of physical evidence behind (talk about an extraordinary claim). Then, he asks us to choose between two options of a false dichotomy; an oversimplified representation of eyewitness testimony with no room for any situational context; regarding this stripped down, unrealistic hypothetical scenario that he has manufactured in hopes of leaving us no choice but to reach the conclusion he WANTS us to reach.

Then, he follows with this - and I quote:

Is anyone seriously going to tell me, that they have no evidence with which to hold and convict me? That it's just one story against mine? ... Is the testimony of these 10 other people the claim or the evidence?

(Mind you this thread is piggy-backing off of a discussion about whether the Bible is the claim or the evidence, but RR insists he doesn't want to talk about that here.)

He then spends the next twenty something pages insisting he isn't arguing for testimony as evidence, and that he just wants to talk about it, the nature of it, the value of it, and what other folks believe about it.

THEN, when we try to ACTUALLY discuss the value of testimony as evidence, by way of exploring the spectrum of types of claims it's commonly proffered as evidence for, we're accused of "shifting goal posts" within a dialogue that he, himself, insists is not a debate.

Then he says he wants everyone to stop saying eyewitness testimony isn't evidence.

Epic fail, yet again, RR. Now, take your ball and go home.