Naboth's Vineyard

There is no such thing as evidence of a crime that could not be misleading or in some way an illusion, even if all the evidence of the senses and hearsay (testimony) pointed towards one possibility being true/probable.  Apart from the genuine logical possibility of almost all sensory perceptions being distorted or otherwise inaccurate, technological recordings like those of cameras or audio tapes (through either glitches or sabotage), testimony from people (through either happenstance misremembering or intentional lying), and physical disturbances at a geographical location (due to planted evidence or uncontrollable factors like weather) could all in one way or another suggest that something which did not happen did or vice versa.

If evidence was logical proof--something which follows necessarily from another truth that is both true and demonstrable through the laws of logic--it would not need evidence to be amassed, and it would not even be possible for the evidence to be falsified or misperceived.  Categorically, this is by necessity not the case with such information taken perceived by the senses, and every individual example of evidence that a person, say, committed murder or theft falls short of absolute certainty in establishing guilt or innocence.  This is the human epistemological condition, like it or not.  It is not that the Biblical requirement of two or three witnesses minimum for all criminal punishments (Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15) is an intrinsic marker of guilt.

Certainly, for men or women to be witnesses to begin with, they would have had to see the event in question.  False witnesses are not genuine witnesses because they lie concerning either the event itself happening or the nature of what occurred.  Other than the fact that in saying that people to be executed have to have carried out particular acts (like those of Exodus 22:18-20) or that the requirement of multiple witnesses would already necessitate that they must not be lying, Exodus 23:1 says to not falsely accuse someone, and Exodus 23:7 says to have nothing to do with a false charge and to not execute or by extension otherwise punish innocent people.  In fact, testifying against someone in an intentionally dishonest manner deserves the punishment the accused person would have Biblically received (Deuteronomy 19:16-21).

Witnesses can be in error due to memory flaws or malicious intentions, the latter of which the aforementioned verses acknowledge as it is.  It is not that two or three witnesses cannot be wrong, but that punishing someone without at least this number of witnesses/evidences is always immoral according to Yahweh.  Jezebel, queen of Israel, relies on the former truth in 1 Kings 21.  Here, when her husband Ahab is troubled because a vineyard owner named Naboth refuses to sell his vineyard to the king, she arranges to have two false witnesses publicly accuse the man of cursing God and the king, at least one of these beings a capital sin (Exodus 22:28, Leviticus 24:16).  On the testimony of these two liars, Naboth is killed, and thus Jezebel obtains the vineyard as she told Ahab she would.  Of course, in the New Testament, the corrupt Sanhedrin musters false witnesses against Jesus (Matthew 26:59-60).

The Bible gives examples of how two or three witnesses might not at all be honest and mandates specific penalties for such lying men and women--as an aside, it absolutely does not require male witnesses as the Jewish historian Josephus conflated with its teachings in Antiquities of the Jews.  It is logically possible for two or three (or more) witnesses to collude ahead of time and plant illusory physical evidence in addition to constructing a unified but false story.  This is what happened with the people Jezebel had come forward against Naboth in a very orchestrated manner.  Some people might think that other evidence or modern methods of securing evidence are less susceptible to being misleading.  Nonetheless, fingerprints and genetic evidence can be planted; as mentioned, technological records can glitch or be edited.

There is no such thing as evidence that proves a person is guilty with no possibility of illusion.  Thus, only an irrationalistic fool, though acting as if evidence is valid does not require believing that it is, actually thinks that either witness testimony or some other evidence proves innocence or guilt.  It never logically follows from anything humans have epistemological access to that witnesses or records themselves are presenting the truth about an event.  The absence of witnesses, physical (including genetic) evidence, and recordings or documentation does not mean someone did not commit a crime.  The presence of witnesses and the other kinds of evidence does not mean someone did commit it.  Mere perception and evidence proves nothing except that evidence is being perceived.  Nothing prescribed in Mosaic Law contradicts this even as minimum threshold of evidence is demanded.