“The questioning of witnesses and drafting of statements is a highly skilled task. It is given very little (if any) consideration during the whole process of legal education and training. Statements are often (probably usually) taken by people who have not read the rules, or Practice Directions, and never seen a witness give evidence in court. It is perhaps unsurprising that so many parties come to grief.”
Many cases have many witnesses saying, essentially, the same thing. Inconsistencies between witnesses are (often subconsciously) ironed out by lawyers during the statement stage. However consistency is not always a good thing.
WHEN WITNESSES AGREE 100%: THEY’RE PROBABLY WRONG
This is the title of an article by Joshua A. Krisch on vocativ. The opening paragraph says it all
“Let’s face it—there’s something inherently fishy about a panel of witnesses who each recall the exact same series of events. Humans are imperfect; we see things differently, forget minor details and recount stories in odd orders. So, when witnesses’ accounts don’t differ by a healthy margin, it’s actually a sign something might be wrong.”
The article draws upon an article by the Royal Society: Too good to be true: when overwhelming evidence fails to convince. This is a sophisticated mathematical analysis. However, as Joshua Krisch, summarises “the probability of perfect…
View original post 1,611 more words
