Witness testimony is almost always evaluated to determine the degree of its reliability. That is why juries,judges, and historians both past and present, question things like the reputation of the witness, his motive, his proximity to the event, how long ago the even occurred, the likelihood that the event could have occurred as described, etc.
This whole paragraph seems to miss the point. This is talking about the reliability of a particular witness. That is not the point.
The point is that
all eye witness testimony is suspect. It doesn't matter the reputation of the witness, the motive, his proximately, how long or anything else about the witness. If you are asking those questions then you don't understand the issue that is bein raised here. We have only in the last decade or two had the information necessary to realize how easily a memory may be twisted or created.