Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[Mister Agenda]

And I have explained why, despite legalistic definitions, testimony is NOT evidence. It isn't evidence of anything but that the person giving it claims a particular thing. The evidence part is what is used to determine whether their claim is credible enough to justify finding someone guilty or not guilty, as the case may be.

You think 'evidence' is a synonym of 'fact'. But the definition of evidence is facts or information... Someone saying they were sexually assaulted is information by any standard. 

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

[ul]
[li]1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.[/li]
[/ul]

It's absolute proof that they claimed they were assaulted. It isn't evidence about whether what they claim is true. To evaluate the likelihood that the claim is accurate and truthful, we use evidence. There's a reason we don't convict based on accusations alone. They're a good reason to look for evidence to investigate the validity of the claim, but they aren't evidence in themselves of the accused person's guilt or innocence.

The accusation is the belief or proposition, not the body of facts or information indicating whether it's true or valid.