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


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


Where is there room for error in this case?


Incorrectly remembering what he saw (dates, people, milieus, etc.).

What reason would this witness have to lie?


Partisanship?


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?


How about we start with at least two people and take it from there?


--Mike