Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

I just don't agree, that this makes it not evidence, or makes it so unreliable as to outweigh it's strengths.

Then you're ignoring the obvious flaws because of confirmation bias.

I agree with much in your video.  I agree with the issues of identifying a stranger (although I do think that most of the time, you will get good representation) that even if they feel certain, that is not enough.   I also agree, with the studies on memory, and details.  That our memory is not like a perfect recall system, and there may be details we miss, or remember inaccurately.  I agree that certain methods of interrogation, do not take the testimony, but can interject aspects into it, and we should be cautious of this. 

I believe that I agreed to these things before as well; so I don't know what you think, that I am "ignoring, because of confirmation bias"  However, I also think that there are a number of things, that are verified by witness testimony.  I believe that our perception, memory, and recollection of reality for the most part is representative of reality (even if some details may become blurry).  How many of your beliefs are based on either these things, or if you didn't experience them personally, then the testimony of others? 

I do think that it is interesting, in the video, that given what he had shown about the lighting conditions, that everyone picked the same person.  I think that there must be more to the story about how this happened.   From what he shown, they didn't really see anything to go on. I also notice that he is also basing a large part of his analysis on other parts their testimony.  I would agree, that this is a case, where they didn't properly test their witnesses and relied too much on identification of a stranger.  I don't think it was investigated well.  This is all of course given, that I take any of your expert's testimony as evidence for what he was saying.