Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[LadyForCamus]

Thoughts?

If you said, "Hearsay is NEVER sufficient evidence," but you want to lock up men who have been accused by hearsay, then there's a conflict there.

Yeah, I think I have made this mistake in the past.

---

For me the question has never been if testimony can be accepted as evidence, but if it can be accepted as evidence on it's own.

It's the same question in this case.  What evidence will there be for sexual assault that happened maybe a decade or more ago?

Right.  And as others have pointed out, we have facts and information surrounding the claim, but we don't have any direct evidence of the alleged crime itself.  There is no way we could for many of these cases. We're left to draw conclusions based on what little information we do have.  So, in Roy Moore's case, are we accepting a claim based on hearsay?  Or do we get to call that hearsay 'evidence' because it's all we have?  I mean, that's more or less what we're dealing with in his case, isn't it?  Hearsay about trolling the mall; "common knowledge" that he liked young girls, etc.  These  stories corroborate the testimony of the alleged victims (enhancing their credibility as witnesses, at least for me), but by the standard that I have put forth, they don't qualify as evidence.