OK, I'll concede that one, that some witnesses do lie 
, because I didn't really make myself clear.
I was talking about genuine, honest witnesses who are really trying to be helpful, yet still often get it very wrong.
I have taken part in training exercises where we put students (on detective training courses) through a simulated incident when they were not expecting it, immediately separated them so they could not discuss it, and had them write their witness statements. We would video the incidents and students responses for later playback to them.
We would then sit them down together and get them to discuss what they saw. Don't forget these were already very experienced police officers taking the next step to becoming criminal investigators, you could say they were professional witnesses.
Many would disagree, and have "seen" something completely different from their colleagues, and we would get arguments breaking out about who was right and who was wrong.
Also, interestingly, peer pressure would come in to play and some would change their verbal account from their written statement to fit other peoples versions if the account was particularly well put over or forcefully argued.
We would then play back the video of the incident so they could all see what they DID actually witness.
Invariably most people at least had got something wrong.
But crucially, and why I said they were not lying, is that every one of them would have passed a polygraph test, because their own minds had convinced them of what they believed they had seen and they honestly believed their account was correct even though it was sometimes very wrong.
It was even more difficult for those who had buckled to peer pressure and had changed their story.
Some were just embarrassed they had not "stuck to their guns", but sometimes they could not understand why they had written the account they did and actually started to believe their changed account.
We did these exercises to show the investigators just how different genuine accounts of the same incident can be when coloured by a slightly different perspective, viewpoint and personal background, but also to highlight how important it was how questions were asked, answers tested, and then still taken with a pinch of salt unless somehow independently verified. It was especially important to show how accounts changed over time after discussion and peer pressure came to play.
Usually with time accounts became more detailed as their minds filled in details they were sure they knew, but actually couldn't remember at the time, but of course must have been so!
Phil.
, because I didn't really make myself clear.I was talking about genuine, honest witnesses who are really trying to be helpful, yet still often get it very wrong.
I have taken part in training exercises where we put students (on detective training courses) through a simulated incident when they were not expecting it, immediately separated them so they could not discuss it, and had them write their witness statements. We would video the incidents and students responses for later playback to them.
We would then sit them down together and get them to discuss what they saw. Don't forget these were already very experienced police officers taking the next step to becoming criminal investigators, you could say they were professional witnesses.
Many would disagree, and have "seen" something completely different from their colleagues, and we would get arguments breaking out about who was right and who was wrong.
Also, interestingly, peer pressure would come in to play and some would change their verbal account from their written statement to fit other peoples versions if the account was particularly well put over or forcefully argued.
We would then play back the video of the incident so they could all see what they DID actually witness.
Invariably most people at least had got something wrong.
But crucially, and why I said they were not lying, is that every one of them would have passed a polygraph test, because their own minds had convinced them of what they believed they had seen and they honestly believed their account was correct even though it was sometimes very wrong.
It was even more difficult for those who had buckled to peer pressure and had changed their story.
Some were just embarrassed they had not "stuck to their guns", but sometimes they could not understand why they had written the account they did and actually started to believe their changed account.
We did these exercises to show the investigators just how different genuine accounts of the same incident can be when coloured by a slightly different perspective, viewpoint and personal background, but also to highlight how important it was how questions were asked, answers tested, and then still taken with a pinch of salt unless somehow independently verified. It was especially important to show how accounts changed over time after discussion and peer pressure came to play.
Usually with time accounts became more detailed as their minds filled in details they were sure they knew, but actually couldn't remember at the time, but of course must have been so!
Phil.
