This researcher is claiming 30 eyewitnesses:

"These include reports of sightings by more than 30 eyewitnesses, all of whom I spoke with directly."

That's a lot of people. This not comparable to the 90 year old granny who squints and says "Yes, officer, that's the man, I'm sure that is him."

About this:

"There’s not a shred of physical evidence?"

Why does there need to be physical evidence? As he asks in the article, why aren't the observations recorded enough?

Could it not be that these people (like others elsewhere) have a folk tradition about "little people"? Could the tradition have its roots in a prior encounter with fossils of this hominid?

Hardly enough to surpass reasonable doubt, I think.

Their point is people get convicted on "not a shred of physical evidence", but plenty of eyewitnesses. Why are the rules for punishing someone so much more lax than the rules for whether or not something can exist?