Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

This is what the American Bar Association has to say on the subject:

https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/...iable.html

I had seen that.... it mostly deals with witness identification, which I agree with the reforms being proposed.

---

Does it not stand on it's own, because it is not evidence?   This seems a bit circular to me.

Any how, I posted a lawyers Q&A page.   The overwhelming consensus was that given good testimony, that it can stand on it's own.

I already explained what is circular, you false-equivocating wretch, which is to use testimony to verify other testimony in the absence of all other evidence. Once evidence enters the equation, testimony is the gum stuck to the bottom of someone's shoe; it's there, but it's either unimportant or unhelpful and annoying.

Good testimony (in other words, a valid assertion) is only able to be verified as such if the evidence actually works with it, otherwise there's no way of knowing, so that's a completely nonsensical statement you're making. Saying it stands its own in the absence of any evidence is something that should get someone disbarred because that's inexcusably stupid for an attorney to not to understand, let alone your average Joe godcocksucker on the street. It's a paradox because you can't say whether testimony is good without corroborating evidence so the very idea that it can stand on its own is ludicrous and demonstrates that, as I've pointed out repeatedly, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

When I removed the insults and repeating your claim from the post, there is not much left to work with.   Perhaps you should try again!