Evidence to Convict?

[Astonished]

Here is why I considered the 11 eyewitness accounts as evidence. The evidence may not be enough to convict without video, fingerprints, DNA, etc. but still qualify. Roadrunner stated these people were strangers. The scenario might be a crowded cafe. The witnesses are strangers to one another. What collaboration might there be between them? What would be the motivation for 11 strangers to bear false witness against the attacker?

RR should already know my opinions on testimony, but for those who didn't follow our mostly civil discussion of the topic, I'll state them here. Testimony is fine as evidence, as long as it is corroborative in nature to the physical evidence. Testimony alone should never be sufficient to convict anyone of a serious crime, especially crimes where long stretches in prison or even capital punishment are the possible sentences. Too many innocent people have received convictions when they did not commit the crime for which they are charged.

So, would I be correct in assuming that, if no empirical evidence is found, collecting testimony would then be somewhat of a waste of time because its function, to corroborate the actual physical evidence, cannot be performed in the absence of said evidence?

I'm not even sure it's really all that helpful anyway, like in a situation such as, "No, I don't recall seeing the suspect in the room at the time he claims." Still subject to all the horrible flaws in human cognition.

I remember during the OJ Simpson trial, when it constantly interrupted my afternoon cartoons twenty-some-odd years ago, that Hispanic woman, the neighbor or something, was pressed if she could remember if his car was in his driveway at such and such a time. It went on for days or at least some unreasonable amount of time. I cannot think of a more inane time-wasting exercise in a court proceeding.