[t-shirt]

That is a lie. Eyewitness accounts are much more reliable than heresay or circumstantial evidence or even evidence such as a fingerprint--which can be easily planted as were dozens of figureprints and other evidence in the recent LA police corruption investigations and court cases. Where eyewitnesses are sometimes unreliable is generally where someone has a motive to lie and is lying or where a individual doesn't remember details like the color of a car or clothing of a perp. No regular citizen from the neighborhood has any reason to lie. And someone doesn't just imagine they see a fireball or an explosion, it doesn't happen like that---It's not a minor detail. Seeing an explosion is not a minor detail.

[mlo]

No. You are incredibly wrong. I don't where you get such nonsense. Eyewitness testimony is more reliable than circumstantial evidence? than physical evidence? than fingerprints? Please, don't try to play detective, you have no idea.

[Trust but Verify]

Nobody is saying the neighborhood peopel are lying! They're saying people misperceive what they have seen. This has been PROVEN, time and time again. Tell me, what PROOF do YOU have to offer in this instance?

I thought so.