Can't decide if Reese's Animal Crackers or these Goldfish are my new favorite. They are both so good.

That summit could've been a post it note.

It depends on the circumstances. If you really knew so much about evidence and the legal profession, you would know that an attorney cannot in good conscience render an opinion without knowing all the facts. And with that I wish a good night.

Of course testimony is enough in & of itself. Look thru verdicts. Jurors are very influenced by witness testimony.

The weakest evidence is circumstantial.

My or your personal opinion has nothing to do with the existing Rules of Evidence. Don't like it? Talk to the legislature & get it changed.

You have some really weird axe to grind.

As a former litigator I can assure you that you do *not* know all about evidence. You do yourself a disservice to think that you have even a basic understanding.

I didn't answer your question because it is completely irrelevant to my initial assertion that testimony *is* in fact evidence.

Again, that goes to the weight of the evidence, not whether testimony *is* evidence.

If you really want to understand evidence, I highly recommend Nolo.com - written for the lay person by attorneys.

*Corrobarative* evidence would be nice to have but isn't always available. In this particular case it is quite likely it would be thru sources other than just the files or Maxwell's testimony.

More importantly the point of my post was their testimony *is* evidence not the weight to be given it.

Right?

I get the point you were making but the victims' testimony is actual evidence.

Citing tensions in the Middle East. I'm sure that has to be it. He isn't a spoiled toddler or anything. At least from an American perspective it is one less international event he can completely humiliate the country at.