Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

---

Thanks,   I did miss that part if Astreja was trying to change things though.
However if the fingerprints don't conclusively point to me as the attacker, then of what evidence are they?

---

You keep on adding new "ifs" to the equation.

---

  Let's say for now that they are your prints, and that they're placed on the parts of the chair that you were holding onto when you assaulted the victim. In the presence of other testable things, for example blood from a head wound where the chair leg struck the victim, it's making a rather convincing case against you.

I see no comparable evidence for the foundational claims of Christianity, just hearsay recorded more than a generation after the events they describe.  To put this in perspective, the gospel of Mark (thought to be written circa 66-70 CE) is analogous to someone writing an account in 2017 of miracles of The Force that occurred in an obscure theatre on the Star Wars opening weekend in 1977.

---

Not adding new "ifs". The description, that there was no explicit physical evidence which pointed to any particular person was there from the beginning. And it's also the point of the question.

Also, this isn't about anything else, other than testimony as evidence. Or if it can be. Which is why I gave an example and asked about it. Now I would agree, that details can change the evidential value of the testimony. For example, someone else in the building could have heard the assault and while their testimony is evidence, and can provide information. It's not evidence against me. And we could add even more scenarios that would need to be evaluated, for there worth, but this is about a number of independent witnesses who seen what happened. And asking if that is evidence.