It can't really be treated as "evidence". Maybe it's "probable cause" for looking into something -- but that's different in a couple of important ways:
* One needs real and credible evidence to carry through with depriving another person of any liberty or property.
* Probable cause never trumps or adds to evidence -- if you investigate and find nothing, that's it.
One of the most confusing and unfortunate memes of the past year is this "believe women" stuff, because it confuses strong suspicion with proof. If these cases show us anything, it's that there is plenty of real and credible evidence -- no need to go on intuition or suspicion.
In a court of law, personal testimony is evidence. It isn't necessarily compelling by itself, but the idea that it isn't evidence because you don't like it is not actually how the legal system (or culture) works.
A "constant murmur" isn't testimony. Testimony includes specifics like the people involved, the time and place of the incident, and what precisely happened. A murmur doesn't need any of that. Not the least, because no one goes on the record for a murmur.
...the idea that it isn't evidence because you don't
like it is not actually how the legal system (or
culture) works.
What does this have to do with whether I like it or not?
* One needs real and credible evidence to carry through with depriving another person of any liberty or property.
* Probable cause never trumps or adds to evidence -- if you investigate and find nothing, that's it.
One of the most confusing and unfortunate memes of the past year is this "believe women" stuff, because it confuses strong suspicion with proof. If these cases show us anything, it's that there is plenty of real and credible evidence -- no need to go on intuition or suspicion.