Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

So if I can make the same arguements against DNA evidence, that are made against witness testimony, the same conclusion would follow.  Does anyone disagree?

Lol, you can't though.  that's the whole point. To try and place those two on the same platform is simply equivocation. Crappy, transparent equivocation. Did you even read TGB's post about how many cases involving DNA evidence have been overturned by eyewitness testimony?

Spoiler alert: the answer is zero.

Cases that you know of (that's not really news, so you don't here if it) And what is the difference if testimony overturns DNA evidence in the first trial or the appeal?

And if the reasons for the argument are the same, then I think that the that the conclusion follows. That is the way logic works. Unless you are saying that either testimony or DNA evidence is a special circumstance which require different arguments. And then I think you need to support that reasoning.