Why would a researcher use a secondary source instead of a primary source when analyzing a historical event

Primary source is the firsthand experience and evidence of an event, where the any given information first appeared (initial report). The secondary source uses the first source in order to give its information (for example: document that analyzes primary source documents).
When analyzing historical event a researcher use a secondary source instead of a primary source because he uses the primary source as the imput information (facts, events, dates, names) in order to analyze them, connect them and explain them in his work.

Ok let's get it