From the first post:
“But he said if the NTSB decided to conduct a public hearing, it would most likely seek opinions from air-safety and aeronautical-design experts rather than witnesses.”
That seems sensible since opinions are extrapolations from reported facts, formed using the expert knowledge and experience of the experts called. But the sources of reported facts include the recollections of witnesses as well as the crash material and associated records.
The evidence presented to an inquiry should include the recollections of witnesses. Such recollections will be different, appear confused and contradictory in detail. But in many instances, evidence from various expert witnesses’ can also be different and contradictory in conclusion.
The fact that various witnesses may have seen different parts of an event should never prevent them from giving such evidence to an inquiry, a trial or a hearing that is trying to find out what is true.
By relying solely on the experts who have examined the crash material, the recordings and data output, it cannot be said the inquiry will have covered every aspect of what happened during those dreadful few minutes if those who actually saw the tragedy unfolding are dismissed as unreliable and ignored.