Evidence to Convict?

[Astonished]

It is my hypothetical.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to clarify when people are trying to evade the point, which is a question about witness testimony apart from anything else.
In the scenario I gave, I think there was an injured person, as well as the chair.  What if I only robbed him (took the $500 in cash that he had).  A number of independent people witnessed it, and again mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture.

Are you saying there is no way, based on the testimony of others alone, that there would be reason for a conviction of the crime?  


Thanks for the opinion... I find it interesting.

YOU CAN'T FUCKING KNOW THAT! So you can't even be given the benefit of the doubt in this preposterous hypothetical.

And the fact that you consider the null hypothesis an 'opinion' tells us everything we need to know about you and how you come to believe what you do. Congratulations.

[Mister Agenda]

So you're now going to allow things into your story that you didn't say in the first place? You seem rather inconsistent on that point. Is there an actual injured party in evidence?

It is my hypothetical.

And it's reasonable for anyone else to take the same liberties with the OP that you do, and unreasonable for you to bitch about it when they do.

---

It doesn't seem unreasonable to clarify when people are trying to evade the point, which is a question about witness testimony apart from anything else.

Are you claiming that I have tried to evade your point?

---

In the scenario I gave, I think there was an injured person, as well as the chair.

So you have a victim as well as the weapon, to physically show that someone was injured and that the chair was the instrument of that injury. You have physical evidence that supports the claim that an assault took place. What is lacking is physical evidence pointing to you (perhaps you wore gloves). This is independent corroboration of the part of the claim that asserts that the person was beaten with the chair. Then, with all the other details you added about the impeccable character, lack of bias, and reliability of the witnesses, and presuming the defense gets to cross-examine them; in my opinion, you'd be convicted, because the claim withstood scrutiny proportionate to the seriousness of the consequences.

[RoadRunner79]

---

It is my hypothetical.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to clarify when people are trying to evade the point, which is a question about witness testimony apart from anything else.
In the scenario I gave, I think there was an injured person, as well as the chair.  What if I only robbed him (took the $500 in cash that he had).  A number of independent people witnessed it, and again mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture.

Are you saying there is no way, based on the testimony of others alone, that there would be reason for a conviction of the crime?  


Thanks for the opinion... I find it interesting.

---

YOU CAN'T FUCKING KNOW THAT! So you can't even be given the benefit of the doubt in this preposterous hypothetical.

Are you saying, that there is no way to rule these things out (at least to within reason)?

And the fact that you consider the null hypothesis an 'opinion' tells us everything we need to know about you and how you come to believe what you do. Congratulations.

No... I find that using the null hypothesis to conclude that we always have good reason to doubt an interesting opinion.

[Mister Agenda]

What if I only robbed him (took the $500 in cash that he had).  A number of independent people witnessed it, and again mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture.

The valid reasons that mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture are additional evidences for the veracity of the claim/testimony.

---

Are you saying there is no way, based on the testimony of others alone, that there would be reason for a conviction of the crime?

Given the physical evidence that the crime actually occurred, the investigation that found evidence to support the character, reliability, and lack of relevant bias among the witnesses; the plausible similarity of the testimonies, and their testimonies surviving cross-examination by the defense; I think conviction would be reasonable.

It's your scenario, and it doesn't seem to actually involve 'based on the testimony of others alone' any more.

[RoadRunner79]

What if I only robbed him (took the $500 in cash that he had).  A number of independent people witnessed it, and again mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture.

The valid reasons that mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture are additional evidences for the veracity of the claim/testimony.

---

Are you saying there is no way, based on the testimony of others alone, that there would be reason for a conviction of the crime?

Given the physical evidence that the crime actually occurred, the investigation that found evidence to support the character, reliability, and lack of relevant bias among the witnesses; the plausible similarity of the testimonies, and their testimonies surviving cross-examination by the defense; I think conviction would be reasonable.

It's your scenario, and it doesn't seem to actually involve 'based on the testimony of other alone' any more.

Yes, and the testimony is the evidence of the act.... correct?

[Astreja]

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.

Ah.  What you have there is a straw man -- in the case of a physical assault, there would almost certainly be some physical evidence.  Without a victim or evidence that there was an actual set-to, the police would have nothing to go on and wouldn't be able to file charges.

That does appear to answer your question -- "No, statements of alleged witnesses are in themselves not enough to go on."

[Amarok]

As I said he's just going to keep making it up as he goes along .And bitches when you do the same thing .

[Foxaèr]

"No, statements of alleged witnesses are in themselves not enough to go on."

Precisely. Eyewitness testimony is enough for questioning, but not enough for a conviction.

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, and the testimony is the evidence of the act.... correct?

No. The injured victim and the chair used to bludgeon him are the evidences of the act.

[Amarok]

Yes, and the testimony is the evidence of the act.... correct?

No. The injured victim and the chair used to bludgeon him are the evidences of the act.

The best the testimony could do is encourage us to look to evidence