Can you show me a single case where a pedophile has been convicted on witness testimony alone, absent any physical evidence of a crime? Or what about the witnesses that claim Trump raped them, is that enough for you to conclude Trump is a rapist? Of course it isn't, it's just hearsay.

The rules are quite clear, eye witness testimony can only be used to identify the person on trial as the person who commited the alleged offence, it cannot be relied on to allege an offence. I can stand in court and say that I saw you murder the person who's body was discovered with a gunshot wound (though it's still very unlikely that that would be enough to convict). I can't however stand in court and say I saw you murder someone when there's no body or other physical evidence to suggest a murder took place, because that's just inadmissable hearsay.

That's the exact problem the testimony faces in these cases, there's no physical evidence of fraud, people have alleged it, and the reports have suggested it's theoretically possible, but without some physical evidence, it's all conjecture and hearsay and therefore inadmissable.

These witness admissibility rules have existed for centuries, it only seems to be Trump supporters that have collective amnesia over their existance