I know of a case in which in the heat of the moment after an incident, the police asked someone involved for his version of what happened. He described it in detail as the police took notes. The policeman wrote a summary of it in his own words and asked the man to sign it. He skimmed over it quickly and signed.
You know how different phrasings can be interpreted differently, don't you? Well, when the man recounted the story in a different setting, he was accused of lying because what he was saying then did not match his original statement. When he looked at it and saw how people were interpreting the policeman's summary of what he had said, he explained that the wording of the policeman's summary was not his wording, and the way they were interpreting the policeman's summary was not what he meant when he said it in his words. He pointed out that what he was saying now was also a valid interpretation of what the policeman had written, so he was not changing his story. It was all in how you interpret the wording of two different accounts.
Some people believed him. Some people didn't. To this day, there are people who swear that he was lying later on because he "changed his story."
