The job of a court is to hear testimony from every available source and then decide what is and what isn't evidence. That's why we have barristers slugging it out. Just because an assertion from an eye witness is presented to a court doesn't mean it will be accepted as evidence. Corroboration will always be required, if the court is fair and if justice is to be done. You are very confused about this despite your alleged scientific background. My standalone observation of ball lightning means nothing unless someone, preferably several someones, completely independent of me, also saw it at the same time and give descriptions that tally with mine.   My careful description may well be added to the general body of alleged sightings, but it in no way confirms either that the phenomenon is real or that ball lightning is what I saw. I appear to be denigrating myself, but, as a scientist, I am trained to treat all evidence with scepticism, in case it isn't evidence at all. There's no other way if knowledge is to be advanced.