Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

I don't see it as a categorical hierarchy.  To me, it depends on the circumstances, and how well the individual or collective evidence makes something evident. 
It's really on a case by case basis.  Normally, if we are only talking about a single point of evidence, I don't consider that very good. Different types of evidence can have different limitations, different false results, that may need to be accounted for, and different ways to make sure they are handled properly.

I didn't want to make this thread a debate about witness testimony, and I still don't.  I have given my views before, and made arguments as to why I think it should not be abandoned as evidence. If you would like to make a new thread, I will likely join and discuss.

Are you aware-or at least able to understand-that this looks like you're trying to make other evidence look as fallible and unreliable as testimony? That this comes across as an incredible, unwarranted and propaganda-esque dismissal of the value of any evidence at all, just so that you can make it seem as though the worst sort of evidence (the only sort the scriptures have going for them) is still on a comparable footing with every other type? Can you see how, in our shoes, this is what it sounds like you're doing here? That this may be one of the reasons it's so difficult to take anything you say seriously because it's simultaneously maximally ignorant and maximally dishonest?

As I said, I'm not going to debate this here (that is not the purpose).  If you like make a new thread of your own.  You can test my "ignorance", and examine my reasons all you like there. 

However, if you are going to question my character and accuse me of dishonesty simply because I disagree.  I think that is a reflection of you more than myself.  Now there could be an inconsistency in how I act vs what I say I believe, you can try to expose that.  But I always try to answer honestly.