Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[Ravenshire]

I know everyone is sick of raking over this particular subject.  I just know that I've said in so many words, 'hearsay and testimony are not evidence, and claims which carry serious consequences shouldn't be accepted on those things, alone.'  But, in the case is Roy Moore I have done exactly that, and I think that despite a total lack of physical evidence, the conclusion that he is probably guilty is a reasonable one.

In the court of public opinion, I would agree. In a legal court of law, I don't believe it satisfies the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Personally, I think the guy is as guilty as the sky is blue. That doesn't mean I'd be ready to vote to convict him on the charges with the current level of evidence, were I on the jury.