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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.

Why wouldn't it be reliable in this case?

Well, from the point of view of the "Doonesbury" folks, it's because
someone could have paid off the witness, or the witness could just plain
be wrong about 30 year old memories. For a counterexample, the
different points of view about Kerry's Vietnam record (ranging from hero
to nearly a war criminal).

Note also the surprising number of guys who have been released from
prison after physical (DNA) testing showed that they could _not_ have
been the person who committed that crime, after a witness' testimony put
them away.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.