My own opinions on the believability of various accounts have been heavily influenced by reading a few classical-period historians and also by my own experiences.
I forget the names at the moment (CRS, grin) but one of the old historians was quite factual as it turned out, and in his writings he used such phrases as "With my own eyes I saw..." and the corresponding "I was told....", whereas the other old Greek (or Roman or whoever) merely related his descriptions as fact with no details, and has long been deemed a Munchausen.
In addition when I was foreman of a union-labor crew my daily work diary was subpoenaed into court on 2 separate occasions, and I got a quick education by the lawyers on the comparative weight of various written and spoken records. In both cases my written record was considered to be the most factual account, FAR more so than ANY of the spoken testimony or depositions.
Reasons? 3 of 'em: I was an eyewitness with no 'stake', I wrote the account(s) on the same day(s) as the events occurred and I recorded ALL the events of each and every day, not just the unusual ones.
The lawyers emphasized to me that one of the most telling factors in the judge's evaluation of my record was the amount and detail of my 'incidental' accounts. IOW the relating of incidental small & seemingly unimportant details was one of the standards by which the accounts were judged.
(Y'know, details like speaking Italian in a German shop just for grins and giggles......)
Verbal and written testimony long after the fact by the participants with a 'stake'? Well, let's just say that the judge looked kinda bored.....Testimony after the fact by bystander witnesses? Admissible and important, depending. Testimony by non-witnesses? Not admissible. Newspaper and other journal accounts? Not admissible. Written government records? Admissible if shown to be consistent with other entries. Assumptions made upon the absence of evidence? Don't even go there!
Regards, Joe
Last edited by J.D.Steele; 12/21/11 01:22 PM.
