libgeek

I was a juror several years ago on murder trial that depended heavily on the identification made by witnesses. However, other evidence, including some grainy surveillance footage, made it really obvious that the actual perpetrator was nearly a foot taller than the defendant.

Do you have any insight to offer on the (un)reliability of eye witnesses? Do we rely on it too much in the US? "Circumstantial evidence" is so often scoffed at, but I recall reading that circumstantial evidence is generally more reliable than human witnesses. Has that been your experience?

He's also a time traveler. I expect the grammar starts to get confusing when the timelines split.