All the criminal lawyers as well as District Attorney's, I know, they would prefer to have cirumstantial evidence over eye wittnesses. Why? Because eye wittnesses don't usually see or remember the same things. And, quite often the wittnesses are not accurate with the facts they present.
In a class at Boalt Law School, one of the prof. use to have a group of people unexpectedly enter a class room, act out a criminal act, and then the group would rush out of the class room.
The prof would then place on the board what people remembered.
It was amazing what a huge class room of future lawyers, all who had to be at the top of their class to be in Boalt, saw or thought they saw.
The group would be called back into the room. And step by step the prof. would show how unreliable wittnesses were.
So, the same kind of problems occured with those who claimed to have been eye wittnessses to the execution and buriel of the IF.
This is one of the main reasons I like to dig out "evidence" which either supports what's been told to us by men like Yurovsky or the investigators, instead of taking testimony as the absolute proof that events occured.
AGRBear
