You elucidate so well. (is that the right word?? or should I say write word??)
You must be a writer. ....oh wait....
Thanks! It’s not necessary to be especially lucid in this case, however. It pretty much argues itself. I.e.: if eyewitnesses were *as* unreliable we’re being led to believe, adjustments for that fact would be routine. When a witness reports ‘four armed black men in a beige or tan Toyota’ the dispatcher would rely, ‘BOLO for an unarmed white woman in a black VW’.
But of course that’s not what happens. The witness is given the benefit of the doubt, & cops react accordingly. They may spot suspects that match up on all but one or two points, and check them out.
But a suspect that matches NO points? A single woman in a burgundy Nissan, with young kids in the backseat? This, we are told, is possibly what the witness meant by ‘four armed men in a tan Toyota’? (Not to omit a critical point: all were black. So she did match that one out of five points. As do millions upon millions of other innocent citizens.)
As I said above, this argument is a hole. The only solution is to stop digging.