"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

The same reason it isn't very reliable in any case.


All cases are the same? I think there's a significant difference between a
case where a witness is asked to identify a person they've never seen before
and a case where there asked to plave a coworker at their workplace.



One person can relate his testimony inaccurately (intentionally
or otherwise).


Where is there room for error in this case? What reason would this witness
have to lie?



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"?


How many are needed in this case?