I kind of agree with this. One of the foundations to our legal system was to prevent the habbit of false accusations of those in power and those who would get rid of someone they didn't agree with. I am not saying those people are not guilty but to convict a person where the only evidence is testimony is not kosher. Kosher is a non-christian religious word so it's PC to use it.

For instance if I called a Robert and told him Jinxy stole my pint and drank it without evidence or witness and they hauled Jinxy off to jail for the night would that be proper? At the time it probably would in order to relieve a hostile situation but there is doubt on Jinxy's guilt. Perhaps it was Jinky's pint all along and I was too pissed to realize I had been cut off?

If the landlord confirmed my suspician that might be another matter. Here the supreme court says this: When instructing Jurors, let them know that the certainty of an identity by the plaintiff or witness is not a scientific or iplausible and they should consider that.