depends on how strong the statements impact is. But usually no
The evidence may not be sufficient to convict the suspect in the case.
No, it's not enough evidence to convict someone. You know that they were there, and you can definitely consider them a suspect, but you can't make a definite conviction.
A confession alone is not always enough to convict someone of a crime. Other evidence, such as physical evidence or witness testimony, is typically needed to corroborate the confession and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Confessions can be challenged in court if they are obtained improperly or under duress.
YesAnother View: No, not directly. "Word of mouth" may be enough to bring drug trafficking to the attention of law enforcement, or lead their investigtion in the right direction, but the evidence that is collected and used to convict the defendant(s) must be collected in accordance with the law and the rules of evidence.
Becase all evidence must be factual, proveable, and able to be examined by the defense.
That is up to the police.
Landslide are formed by ice
Not enough information is given. If it was only an e-mail containing statements you didn't care for, you don't really have much of a complaint. If it is part of an ongoing campaign of harassment by someone, save it and add it to your collection of evidence.
The police arrested suspects, but they did not have any hard evidence.
they should have proof, or be able to identify an object that was accused of being stolen
Yes, because I would have to swear on a Bible to tell the truth and when asked if I believe God is who He says He is and Christ is who He says He is, I'd have to tell the truth. I would, in essence, convict myself.
Essentially when enough hard evidence is collected and presented to presume his guilt.