Originally posted by Merge:
Originally posted by Old_alum:
Please explain how the import of whether or not Wilson knew the particulars of the robbery which had taken place in a specific store is essential to justice in the shooting of Brown.
If I didn't see his Sargent contradict him, it would not be important at all.
IF... and just go with me on this one... If Wilson lied about his knowledge of the robbery, would you think it is important?
As discussed above, almost anyone who professionally interviews others should know from experience that 100% congruence is unheard of and that 50%-80% can be considered excellent.
As discussed above, there have been many scientific studies which show that often people cannot repeat their own experience with 90% validity!
NO system can be 100%.
We are seeking optimal, not perfect.
You have read a few of 10,000 pages of transcripts, and see a ''discrepancy'' which I believe --- and I think you, too, believe --- is virtually inconsequential to Wilson's culpability in shooting Brown.
I
expect there to be
scores or hundreds of --- or even 20,000 --- inconsistencies in such transcripts. Most are either "misrememberances" or oversights. Most are merely perspective: you said X0 but I thought I heard you say Xo. In this case, the only discrepancies I would dig into are those which might impact Wilson's culpability. IMO these would NOT include Wilson's knowledge of the specifics of an antecedent event.
From reading a few of 10,000 pages neither you nor I know whether or not someone identified and dug into this discrepancy or into any other. That would be somewhere else in the 10,000 pages.
Again, our system is the worst except for all of the others.
If you want to tilt at windmills, have at Don Q!
But please do not extrapolate minor verbal inconsistencies into an indictable offense.