T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
You are describing eyewitness accounts, not anecdote.It means from personal observation, or experience in small numbers. It can be passed around as hearsay, but not necessarily.
You are describing eyewitness accounts, not anecdote.It means from personal observation, or experience in small numbers. It can be passed around as hearsay, but not necessarily.
Both rely on personal observations.You are describing eyewitness accounts, not anecdote.
One is in person. The other, potentially, is simply what a person heard from another person. That's why legally, anecdote is considered hearsay.Both rely on personal observations.
Both rely on personal observations.
That's, like you said, a hearsay. Anecdotes rely on direct observations.One is in person. The other, potentially, is simply what a person heard from another person. That's why legally, anecdote is considered hearsay.
Mom and Gram's stories are mostly accurate.Nope. Eyewitness accounts are mostly accurate.
Anecdotes are fantasy.
Actually, eyewitness accounts are not fully reliableNope. Eyewitness accounts are mostly accurate.
Anecdotes are fantasy.
Actually, eyewitness accounts are not fully reliable
![]()
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
Human memory is far less reliable than we think. Here’s what research reveals about why eyewitness testimony so often gets it wrong.scienceinsights.org
![]()
Eyewitness Testimony: 2026 Verified Stats
Our in-depth market data report on eyewitness testimony. A document search collects the original publication and places each number next to the sentence it was taken from.worldmetrics.org
People have been wrongly convicted.I said mostly. Thanks for proving my point...![]()
Eyewitness accounts are "information, evidence, or observations based on personal accounts, individual stories, or casual experiences rather than rigorous scientific research", which is to say anecdotal evidence.You are describing eyewitness accounts, not anecdote.
They aren't even "mostly."I said mostly. Thanks for proving my point...![]()
They aren't even "mostly."
One is in person. The other, potentially, is simply what a person heard from another person. That's why legally, anecdote is considered hearsay.
Yep. Driving half a dozen multi-ton armored vehicles over it did it no favors.Trump vandalized it.
Next trump will claim that antifa destroyed a third of the White House.
Today, cameras are everywhere. There is also far more forensic evidence like DNA to use.Without eye witnesses, it would be difficult to prosecute criminals.
Absolutely it was vandalized!! I saw pictures of some self important dick-weed driving a whole motorcade across it!!So the case isn't going well for Trump's prosecutor, the famous, Judge Jeannine!
![]()
DOJ Loses Its First Big Ask in Reflecting Pool “Vandalism” Case
Federal prosecutors are already off to a bad start in their case against U.S. Olympian David Hearn.newrepublic.com
President Trump has spent more than $14 million on the Reflecting Pool, adding a blue coat of paint to the bottom and later dumping hydrogen peroxide into the pool to kill algae, which had the side effect of causing the new paint to peel. Unwilling to accept the consequences of his actions, Trump has blamed vandalism for the poor state of the pool, and Pirro has charged at least four people over it, including Hearn.
The government is accusing Hearn of destruction of property, which could send him to prison for 10 years if he’s found guilty. Pirro claims that Hearn “forcefully and violently” ripped two square feet of the pool’s newly added blue paint, while Hearn maintains that he only touched a piece of paint that was already peeling.
So, trump said - there are videos of someone taking a box-cutter to the $14 million pool lining.
What do you guys think? Don't you think we'd have seen the videos of something like that on a loop?