That’s not quite accurate. Our justice system has never required physical evidence alone. Testimonial evidence is real evidence, and courts have long recognized that credible witness testimony can be sufficient to sustain a conviction or judgment even without physical proof. This principle is well-established in American jurisprudence.

Courts routinely convict defendants based primarily or entirely on witness testimony in cases involving fraud, conspiracy, sexual assault, and many other crimes where physical evidence may be limited or unavailable.

The key factors are the credibility of witnesses and whether their testimony is consistent and corroborated by other evidence (which can include additional testimony).

Federal and state evidence rules reflect this reality. They establish standards for evaluating witness credibility and reliability, but don’t require physical evidence as a prerequisite for conviction.

The burden is on prosecutors to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that proof can come through testimonial evidence.

While physical evidence can certainly strengthen a case, requiring it as an absolute necessity would make it impossible to prosecute many serious crimes and would represent a fundamental departure from centuries of legal precedent.

So while physical evidence can be powerful, it’s not a prerequisite. Courts weigh the credibility and corroboration of testimony carefully, and independent accounts from multiple witnesses are recognized as particularly probative.

This is a rhetoric, guess who’s rhetoric?

Circumstantial evidence is credible evidence. maybe when tons of people are saying the same person raped them, he raped them and we should do something about, rather than arguing in the defense of rapists. Fuck this liberal idealism bullshit take on absolutist or nothing terms of “justice”, use your own god damned brains for once.