Its it simple. You know what you know by examining evidence. All evidence is witnesses. You accept witness statements based on your own criteria.
First youre telling me all knowledge is based on eyewitness accounts.
Yes, either others or the witness of your own senses
Then, no one can trust their senses and therefore no knowledge is possible.I never said that. You did.
Finally, you admit at "some point" we can trust our senses.
Our individual thresholds for accepting witnesses is differs for each person. Some would vote OJ is guilty and some won't.
This is all you had to say 100 posts ago. Then there would have been no room for any misunderstanding.