I will never understand why so many people look at eye and ear witness accounts as if they are empirical evidence. Witness accounts, by themselves, do not establish anything as factual. Witnesses can be, and often are, wrong. Yet when somebody comes across a witness that fits their preferred narrative, they latch onto it as "proof" of what they choose to believe. They act as if "So and so said........" establishes a fact without ever offering any supporting evidence that indicates what so-and-so said is correct. It might be correct and it might very well be wrong. All eye and ear witness accounts should be looked at as a big MAYBE unless and until it can be corroborated. While multiple witnesses saying the same thing is a bit more compelling than a single witness, it still doesn't establish what they said is correct. Multiple people can make the same mistake. Case in point. A large group of witnesses said all the shots came from the direction of the GK and another large group of witnesses said the shots all came from the direction of the TSBD. Obviously, both groups cannot be right. There is a large group of witnesses who all said the same wrong thing. They all made the same mistake. So while multiple witnesses saying the same thing is a bit more compelling than a single witness, it still does not establish a fact. The only time I will point to an eye or ear witness as evidence is if that witness can be corroborated by forensic evidence.
