Struggling to reconcile conflicting eyewitness accounts? Consider the “Discrepancy of Perspective” and change your investigative mindset.
How many times have you encountered this scenario in your work as a private investigator?
One witness is absolutely certain of their story.
Another is just as adamant.
But their narratives conflict, sometimes starkly.
Imagine a simple traffic accident in an intersection. You have two eyewitnesses, standing on opposite corners, each willing to give an account. Witness A tells you that the blue car had the green light and the orange car just “barreled through” and struck that poor lady. Witness B insists that the fellow in the orange car had the green light.
You’re left to wonder, “Who is lying and why?”
This is a phenomenon I call the “Discrepancy of Perspective.”
If you’re anything like me, you hate it when this happens. Most of us were drawn to this field by an innate curiosity, a love of logic, and a gift for methodical deduction. But our trust in reason makes it tough for us to make sense of the conflicting accounts before us.
Part of the disconnect between us and these contradictory “facts” is our understanding of logic.
The law of non-contradiction states that “contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.”[1] That seems obvious enough. But if we understand the “discrepancy of perspective,” we can move ever closer to sorting through the differing accounts.
Let’s do an exercise of perspective.
- Let’s say that there is a train with a dining car.
- Witness A is sitting at a table in the dining car. The maître d’ holds a tennis ball three feet above the table and lets it go.
- The ball falls three feet to the table, bounces three feet back up, and he catches it.
- Witness A would testify, under oath, that the tennis ball traveled six feet.
Simple enough, right? Well…
- At the same time, Witness B is sitting on a hilltop watching the train go by.
- He sees the maître d’ drop the ball.
- From the time that the ball is released, bounces, and travels back up to the man’s hand, the train has traveled one hundred feet.
- Witness B would testify, under oath, that the tennis ball traveled ~one hundred and six feet.
It’s an absurd example, like something out of a 1980s math primer. A more realistic scenario might be witnesses who disagree about what a suspect was wearing or who was the aggressor in a bar fight. But you get the idea.
In any of these examples, imagine that both witnesses are absolute in their assertions and will fight anyone who says they’re wrong. Remember, “contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.” So, someone must be lying, right (or at least, misremembering)?
Unless we recognize the discrepancy of perspective. Both witnesses are being truthful and accurate about what they saw from their perspective. It then becomes the investigator’s job to not only gather the facts of the case, not only interpret the facts of the case, but to also compare perspectives — and try to understand what may have caused the variable observations.
So, the question is, how do we compensate for the discrepancy of perspective? Or, more to the point, how do we work around it?
Here are three points that might help answer these valid questions.
1. Don’t assume that someone is lying.
Yes, the law of non-contradiction stands, and yes, there may be someone who is mistaken. But there’s no reason (yet) to assume that someone is intentionally deceiving you. People miss details or misremember them for all kinds of reasons. In fact, one major cause of wrongful convictions is mistaken eyewitness testimony.
Before you consider the possibility of lying, first consider the likelihood of error.
2. STOP and look at the facts through the lens of each conflicting witness.
Try to actually put yourself into the shoes of each witness. I’ve worked accident cases where I have literally done just that. I might spend an hour at an accident scene looking at it from every angle, observing the traffic patterns, watching the lights change, and looking for any near misses.
But you should also consider their perspective in a psychological sense. What was their mental state in the moment? What was their experience like emotionally?
3. Let the (provable) facts guide you.
The “discrepancy of perspective” approach can help you to compare the differing accounts in a methodical way and may even afford you puzzle pieces that you wouldn’t otherwise have. And even though you might not be able to reconcile every single conflicting detail, by using the facts you know, you can get much closer to a true picture of what actually happened.
I’ve found this to be helpful in just about every type of case that we have worked — anytime there are witness statements as part of the evidence.
Now, after all of that buildup, let me warn you that this is simply a tool for your toolbox, not a cure-all. But it IS an incredibly useful tool that may help you make some sense out of a seemingly senseless situation.
About the author:
Clay A. Kahler, B.A., M.Rs, M.A., Ph.D. brings an extensive background of military police and civilian law enforcement experience. He has earned degrees in Biblical Studies and Theology. He is an author, instructor, professor, lecturer and pastor. Clay also holds OSHA certifications in “Basic Accident Investigation” and “Effective Accident Investigation” as well as numerous certifications from the Federal Emergency Management Administration.
Sources:
[1] Bochenski, Joseph M., 1961. A History of Formal Logic, Notre Dame: University of Notra Dame Press.