The interviwer was a psychologist who had been working with perception for a while. I guess he knew something about questioning, but disagreed with police and jurists on most points. But saying "please describe in your own words..." is how pros usually start, and what was shown on the video was only the answers to that question (maybe some follow up, again my memory falters, at least not many since it was same questions for all witnesses).
I don't know if the situation was set up to produce it. What happened was that one man (A) was standing idly at the tracks. Another man (B) went by, taking a comb from his pocket and starting to comb himself. As B passed close to A, A grabbed his armed. B pulled free, thus causing A to trip and fall, then ran off. Then the train came and blocked the view. What most people claimed (and claimed to be certain of) was that B had stabbed A with a knife. One witness said he had beaten him senseless with a short iron bar.
There was no physical evidence since there was no trial, but the post I replied to was the one were you disclaimed the need for conclusive physical evidence.
No, the right version (according to the video) would not have caused any stir. What was shown wasn't anything directly juridically interesting, just that human perception is (might be under some cirumstances) rather uniform, but faulty. |
