@SheepGuts
And good old visual sightings don't rate anymore, which is a serious mistake in any investigation.
...
We need to get back to basics and stop betting everything on the tech stuff it does help. But we need to look at all the sightings.
Google the Innocence Project and then tell me you would happily take eyewitness testimony over scientific/technical evidence. In about 75% of convictions overturned by DNA evidence, the main evidence that secured the conviction was eyewitness testimony.
Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.
This is why two people can witness the same event but their testimony will not be the same. Plus, eyewitnesses will not necessarily see the whole picture and the bit they do see can be biased to a certain conclusion which doesn't reflect the truth.
I would say it would be a serious mistake to discount eyewitness testimony, but a even bigger mistake to put more reliance on it than the technical evidence. I would argue the technical evidence is more likely to give you the truth than eyewitness sightings particularly in a situation where people are panicked or under stress.