In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.


Why wouldn't it be reliable in this case?


The same reason it isn't very reliable in any case. One person can
relate his testimony inaccurately (intentionally or otherwise). It's
when you get more than one person to corraborate the testimony that it
starts to shape as something credible. In Mr. Bush's case, has anybody
else from his former AL unit stepped forward to confirm the "sighting"?


--Mike