evidence of a factual dispute. Initially, Plaintiff testified (and re-affirmed) that the picture looked like Midnight. Manson Dep. 360. Only when pressed about whether he had any reason to doubt the picture’s authenticity did Plaintiff voice doubts about the picture. He stated that Midnight had a “[sjhorter nozzle, bigger head, [and] nowhere near that many scar, if he had any.” Id. Plaintiff then testified that the pictured animal was not his dog, then hedged again, stating “It might'be, it just don’t look like him.” Id. at 360-61. In the absence of any independent evidence, Plaintiffs equivocal deposition statements could not prevent a reasonable juror from eonclud ing that the pictures are authentic. See S. Indus., Inc. v. Stone Age Equip., Inc., 12 F.Supp.2d 796, 809 (N.D.Ill.1998) (<HOLDING>). More importantly, the Officers had probable
holding that the uncorroborated testimony of an informant may be sufficient to sustain a conviction holding deposition testimony failed to create fact issue because it was internally inconsistent flatly contradicted by documentary and physical evidence and uncorroborated holding that physicians affidavit created genuine issue of material fact even though it directly contradicted his prior deposition testimony where physician offered a plausible explanation for the change in his testimony holding that an uncorroborated callers tip did not create reasonable suspicion holding that uncorroborated testimony of one witness is sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction