Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry about that.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-o...24282.html
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-i...17488.html

So you've got some quotes from lawyers online regarding the pertinacity of testimony as evidence. And as I've said myself, sometimes testimony can be evidence.

Yes, and it is context of those who say that testimony is not evidence, or testimony is so weak as to require physical evidence to go with it. This shows that this is untrue in current U.S. Judicial proceedings.

Now reread my first post in this thread: when I got home from work today, I saw an invisible dragon in my garage. You clearly had a problem with it, and even raised a cogent objection ... but you just never did make the last mile, which is to understand that some testimony under some circumstances is evidential, most testimony will need to be backed up by physical evidence, and some testimony is utter shit.

Yes, and as I have said from the beginning, testimony being evidence, doesn't mean that we do not examine it, test it, and question it at all. I agree, that some testimony can be rubbish, either because of it's content (or lack thereof), or because you have reasons to discount it.

Carrying the point forward a bit further, if testimony needs support from physical or forensic evidence, what does that say about its place in evidentiary proceedings? TGB rightly notes that while convictions based on testimony have been thrown out based on DNA exonerations (oh dear, physical evidence!), none based on physical evidence have been thrown out based on testimony.

That should tell you something about the hierarchy of evidence.

And this is a point, that I would like to hear the reasoning behind. I don't think that you have the information that testimony has never overturned a conviction based on physical evidence. I think that this is an assumption on your part.