Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Interesting.... according to Wikipedia, the second tower collapsed at 10:59AM.... News coverage was still on going at this time.   Did he mean, that the entirety of the collapse was not caught on camera?   There also sites which states that it is he, who is incorrect in his facts such as here.  https://www.metabunk.org/ted-talk-when-a...rong.t780/  That he is confusing the first tower being hit, with the second tower falling.  

It also appears that yet again, an anecdote is being attempted to be used as evidence against anecdotes as evidence.

It impresses on me even further of the fallibility of testimony.

Ok... in this case expert testimony.... I also have news for you.... humans make mistakes.... everything is fallible.  The question is what do we do with that bit of information.   Also, his mistake wasn't entirely wrong, and did resemble the facts.

I think that you are switching topics here.... but it does appear, that you are at least warming up to testimony as evidence.

Warming to it? I wouldn't say that. I've never believed that testimony is useless as evidence, and if I've given that impression I apologize. I just don't believe, based on what we understand of human memory, that it's strong enough to base a firm conclusion on by itself. It's certailny useful as corroborative evidence (murder weapon, DNA evidence and eye-witness(es) placing the accused at the scene).

No need to apologize, there is a lot of different views being presented, and I can't keep track of who exactly is saying what.  

"I saw Joe leave the house after I heard gunshots." should never be enough to convict someone of a murder unless you also have enough physical evidence tying "Joe" to the crime.

On the other hand, "I saw Joe leave the house after I heard gunshots." should very much be enough to investigate "Joe" if a crime has been committed that matches the witnesses claim.

Human memory is too unreliable to trust, by itself, to come to a conclusion. Let me illustrate:
In 1998, I saw Jackie Joyner-Kersee win an Olympic medal at the summer games in New York City. That is, to the best of my knowledge, a statement of fact. It's what I remember. It never happened. New York City has never hosted the Olympic games. There were no summer games in 1998. Yet I clearly remember her winning an Olympic medal, in New York, in 1998.

It happens that it was the Goodwill games, which were indeed held in NYC in 1998. But, I only know that now because I just looked it up and had I been called upon before today to give testimony in a court of law whether Joyner-Kersee won an Olympic medal at the summer Olympic games in New York City, I would have sworn under oath that she did. It's likely that in the future I'll revert to that belief, forgetting once again that there ever were such a thing as the Goodwill games.

Moving beyond the fallibility of human memory, people can give horribly bad testimony even without faulty memories. Is the witness coerced? Is the witness even being honest? Is the witness a friend of the defendant or a foe? Is the witness being paid for their testimony? In short, does the witness have a motive to say what the prosecution (or the defense) wants them to say. These are just some of the things that should bar witness testimony from being the sole evidence to any conclusion.

I would agree with your example here (of seeing someone leave after gunshots).  Not because of the nature of the evidence (testimony), but; because of what it tells us.  I think that if you are going to make your case, you need to do so, against a stronger example rather than a weak one.  I also agree, with many of the things that you cited here. And we need to take them into consideration also.  Contaminated evidence is always an issue.