Since you are unfamiliar with the Caylee Anthony case I will tell you that there were HUNDREDS of sightings that LE and the FBI pursued. NOT ONE SINGLE ONE was correct or true in the slightest way. If Caylees bones had not been found, they would still be chasing down these sightings. Here is some interesting info on the unreliability of eyewitnesses. By the way, what color shirt did you wear 3 days ago? How about your spouse or a friend? Sorry, eyewitnesses cannot do this with any accuracy. [/B]
This is wiki:
Eyewitness identification evidence is the leading cause of
wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the more than 200 people exonerated by way of DNA evidence in the US, over 75% were wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous eyewitness identification evidence.
[1] In England, the Criminal Law Review Committee, writing in 1971, stated that cases of mistaken identification "constitute by far the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong convictions".
[2] Yet despite substantial anecdotal and scientific support for the proposition that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, it is held in high regard by jurors in criminal trials, even when "far outweighed by evidence of innocence."
[3] In the words of former US Supreme Court Justice
William J. Brennan, there is "nothing more convincing [to a jury] than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says 'That's the one!'"
[4]
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html
Snip:
At the same time, numerous psychological studies have shown that human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time. The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percent a frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony.
These studies show further that the ability to identify a stranger is diminished by stress (and what crime situation is not intensely stressful?), that
cross-racial identifications are especially unreliable, and that contrary to what one might think, those witnesses who claim to be "certain" of their identifications are no better at it than everyone else, just more confident.