If people only dig into the eyewitness testimony when they think there’s a conspiracy, does that result in a bunch of people who think the normal state of eyewitness testimony is evidence of a conspiracy? Seems like an example of positive bias (not looking for similar cases where the eyewitness testimony should be consistent).
If people only dig into the eyewitness testimony when they think there’s a conspiracy, does that result in a bunch of people who think the normal state of eyewitness testimony is evidence of a conspiracy? Seems like an example of positive bias (not looking for similar cases where the eyewitness testimony should be consistent).