Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[Ravenshire]

What you say has merit, but I'd far rather reach for the higher goal and fall short than start locking people up based on nothing more than "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act" (the minimum of evidence for treason where no admission of guilt is obtained as established by the constitution).

With all due respect, you are unlikely to be the victim of sexual harassment, as am I.

I think there's some point at which convergence of allegations might be considered evidence.  If dozens of women claim Bill Cosby, apparently one of the nicest and most wholesome entertainers, of a sexual crime, then how do we take that?  They weren't trying to get money.  They didn't seem to have been professionally disadvantaged by him.  What's the motivation?

I think all the motivations of accusing parties, and their relationships, have to be taken into account.  When a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that a variety of accusers have little connection other than their shared claim of abuse, and little to gain from the accusation, then maybe testimony is evidence.

You know, I've said my piece. Hell, I've even agreed that Moore is more likely than not guilty. Same goes for Cosby. I'm simply not willing to convict in a court of law based on the level of evidence so far presented. I understand you want to continue the argument, apparently for the sake of the argument, but count me out.