Hi folks. Long time. I just presented an academic paper about witness testimony. I'm going to paste it in here.
I Said What?
There are (at least) five ways witnesses’ stories can change unintentionally.
1. We want to have an answer for you. And we want to have an answer that will support your premise. It isn’t easy to say, “I don’t know.” We feel like we failed you, and you’ll hear, “I’m so sorry.” It’s possible to feel so much pressure you “think” of something new.
2. When you tell the same story 1,000 times, it can/will ‘organically’ change one word at a time. The 25th time I tell something I might add an adjective. The 50th time that adjective has become three words.
From my interviews:
“I ran over to Baker’s police motorcycle to see if I could hear any information.”
“I ran over to Baker’s two wheeled police motorcycle to see if I could hear any information.”
“I ran over to Baker’s two wheeled police motorcycle that was parked next to some three wheelers, to see if I could hear anything.”
This is all still true, but I’m adding words and that’s where a new, often false, detail crops up.
3. We live in a world where logic reigns supreme, but logic can overtake and change “memory.”
The first time I ever saw a picture of myself on that pedestal, I fell to my knees and cried. I had told the historians that I thought I had on the blue jacket but didn’t know what else. I also said I stayed home from school to go to the “parade.”
Gary Mack asked if I had on a black skirt. I saw the picture and it looked like a skirt.
Big Problem! Logic took over. Well, if I had on a skirt, I must have gone to school. That’s the only way I’d have one on in Dealey Plaza.
Then one of you eagle-eyed researchers figured out it was culottes. Shorts with a skirt. I could not have worn those to school. I must have stayed home like I thought I did.
4. There are 40,000 books and dozens of movies about the Kennedy and the assassination. It would be impossible for us to be sentient beings in the world and not hear about various versions of what happened. Sticking to our original memory takes effort. We do the best we can. We really do.
5. It was a very, very long time ago. I can’t remember what I had for dinner last week.
Try 62 years.
In my very first interview (forgive my extreme obesity at the time) I said I was too far away to see red blood. I saw grey material blast out of his head, but it sparkled. Later, having spoken with the physicists at my University, I learned it would be impossible to see 'sparkle' from that distance. In my next interview I said, "I was too far away to see blood. It didn't sparkle.
I received more than one email saying, "If your testimony changes over time, how can we trust anything you say?"
Welcome to my world.
I have completed my book and Pegasus Books is publishing it. "The Girl in Blue."
The first edition is in pre-order. Physical release in April.
If you are looking for new info on the assassination, you will be disappointed. The book is not about the assassination. It is about an emotionally disturbed little girl who goes to Dealey Plaza, and what the assassination does to her. I had to choose which theory of the assassination to use, and I chose Oswald as the single shooter.
That does not mean I know who killed Kennedy. I don't. The Oswald story was the easiest to research. The book is CREATIVE non-fiction. It is not a historical document. Hopefully, there are places that will make you will laugh and other places that might make you cry. Regardless of your theory, I think you'll enjoy it.
And FYI, no, I didn't see sparkles:))
Toni
I send this on this forum because people are genuinely trying to investigate details, images, testimony.
