Chapter 4: TEST YOUR WITNESSES
Chapter 4
Principle #4:
TEST YOUR WITNESSES
“Mr. Strickland, how can you be so sure that this man is the same man who robbed you?” The defendant’s attorney stood up as he examined the witness and pointed to the man sitting next to him at the defense table. His questions were becoming more accusatory. “Isn’t it true that the robbery occurred well after sunset?”
“Well, yes, it was about ten thirty at night.” Jerry Strickland seemed to be preparing himself for an attack. He correctly interpreted the tone of the attorney’s question and straightened himself in the witness box. He scratched his arm nervously. I knew that Strickland was a smart guy, and I was curious to see how he would hold up under this pressure. I had been working the robbery-homicide desk when I was assigned this case, and I knew it would all come down to Strickland’s identification of the suspect.
“I notice you are wearing glasses today, but isn’t it true that you weren’t wearing those glasses on the night of the robbery?” The defense attorney began to walk slowly toward Mr. Strickland, his arms crossed, his chin slightly elevated as he glanced briefly at the jury.
“I had my glasses on to start with, but I got punched and they flew off my head,” replied Strickland as he pushed his glasses up on his nose. “After that I’m not sure what happened to them.” Jerry’s testimony started off calmly enough under the direct questioning of the deputy district attorney, but now he seemed to be losing his confidence under the pressure of the cross-examination.
“How long did this episode with your attacker last?” the defense attorney asked.
“Just a few seconds,” replied Strickland.
“So let me get this right. You’re willing to send my client to jail for years, yet you only saw the suspect for a few seconds, late at night, in the dark, without the benefit of your glasses?” The defendant’s attorney was now facing the jury. His question was rhetorical; he made his point and was now watching the jury to see if it had the impact he intended.
“Well, I-I’m not sure what to say,” Strickland stammered hesitantly as he sank in his chair.
The prosecutor was an energetic, competent attorney who understood the value of this victim’s eyewitness testimony. She waited for the defense attorney to return to his seat and then prepared for her redirect. “Mr. Strickland, you said earlier that you were robbed by this man. I want to ask you a question. Given your observations of the robber prior to the moment when he punched you; your observations of the suspect’s height, the shape and features of his face, his body type, and the structure of his physique, I want you to rate your certainty about the identity of the suspect. On a scale of one to one hundred, how certain are you that this man sitting here at the defendant’s table is the man who robbed you?”
Jerry Strickland sat up in his chair and leaned forward. He paused just slightly before answering. “I am 100 percent certain that this is the man who robbed me. There is no doubt in my mind.”
The jury returned a verdict in less than thirty minutes and convicted the defendant, largely on the strength of Strickland’s eyewitness testimony. While the defense attorney did his best to illustrate the potential limits of the victim’s ability to accurately describe the suspect, the jury was convinced that Jerry Strickland was a competent eyewitness. They believed his testimony, and the rest was easy. Once you come to trust an eyewitness, you eventually must come to terms with the testimony that eyewitness has offered.
LEARNING TO TRUST AN EYEWITNESS
So, how do we come to trust what an eyewitness has to say? How can we evaluate a witness to make sure he or she is someone we can trust in the first place? Jurors are asked to evaluate witnesses in court cases every day. If you were sitting on a jury in the state of California today, the judge would give you some advice about assessing the witnesses who are about to testify before you. In fact, the judge would tell you that you ought to consider a number of factors and ask yourself the following questions:
1. How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?
2. How well was the witness able to remember and describe what happened?
3. What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?
4. Did the witness understand the questions and answer them directly?
5. Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided?
6. What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about testifying?
7. Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?
8. How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other evidence in the case?
9. [Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the witness testified?]
10. [Did the witness admit to being untruthful?]
11. [What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?]
12. [Has the witness been convicted of a felony?]
13. [Has the witness engaged in (other) conduct that reflects on his or her believability?]
14. [Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his or her testimony?]18
These are the questions that jurors are encouraged to ask as they evaluate witnesses who testify in court. Sometimes these witnesses are testifying in trials that are a matter of life and death—trials that involve defendants who may ultimately face the death penalty. In the end, there are four critical areas of concern when it comes to evaluating an eyewitness:
WERE THEY EVEN THERE?
First, we’ve got to find out if the witness was even present to observe anything in the first place. This concern is captured by questions like “How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?” You might think that this is a silly issue to have to examine, but I can tell you from personal experience that there are times when people will claim to be a witness or participant in a case when they, in fact, were nowhere near the event. I once reopened a case from the early 1970s that my father helped investigate when he was working homicides. I remembered the case as a boy and the stress that it caused my dad when it went unsolved. The case was well known in the region and received an incredible amount of publicity. As I examined the cold case thirty years later, I discovered that the original investigators had been deceived by a man who came forward and confessed to being the killer. He sat with detectives over the course of many days and offered just enough detail to convince them that he had murdered the victim. In truth, he had nothing to do with the crime, but was seeking the attention and twisted fame it brought him. He was eventually exposed as a fraud, but his involvement in the case distracted the investigators long enough to take them off the trail of the real killer. This kind of thing happens in high-profile cases that offer fifteen minutes of fame. This is why we need to make sure that an eyewitness was truly present to see what he or she claims to have seen.
HAVE THEY BEEN HONEST AND ACCURATE?
Assume the Witness Is Trustworthy
The primary concern that most of us have when evaluating witnesses is the issue of credibility. A witness who was present at the time of the crime but who is lying about what happened is of no value. The jury instructions address this issue with questions like “Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?” In recent years, with the large number of court cases that have been publicized and broadcast nationally, we’ve all seen examples of witnesses who have been discredited as liars. When Michael Jackson was accused of child molestation in 2003, for example, the victim’s mother took the stand as a witness. The defense exposed the fact that she had lied about a prior shoplifting incident in 1998. When the jurors discovered this, many (if not all) discredited her testimony in the 2003 case. When a witness is caught about a lie in the past, his or her testimony about the case can be called into question. It’s important, however, to remember that jurors are also given this instruction by the judge:
If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the part that you think is true and ignore the rest.19
There may be a good reason for a witness to lie about something unrelated to the case (perhaps to avoid embarrassment or to protect the privacy of a loved one), yet still tell the truth about what he or she saw in the crime under consideration. Let’s face it, all of us have lied about one thing or another. Jurors have to decide if a witness has simply lied on occasion (for some understandable reason) or is an untrustworthy, habitual liar. In the Michael Jackson case, the jurors seemed to have decided that the witness was the latter.
CAN THEY BE VERIFIED?
It’s fair to ask if a witness’s observations can be verified by some other piece of evidence or testimony. This concern is captured in questions like “How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other evidence in the case?” or “Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the witness testified?” If a witness tells you that the defendant committed a robbery at a bank teller’s window, and you come to find the defendant’s fingerprints at that particular counter, you’ve got a piece of corroborating evidence that begins to verify what the eyewitness has to say. The direct evidence of additional eyewitnesses can also verify a statement, and circumstantial evidence (forensic or otherwise) can help validate what a witness has offered.
DO THEY HAVE AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE?
Finally, jurors have to figure out if a witness has a motive to lie. That’s why the jury instructions include questions like “Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided?” I’ve investigated a number of spousal-abuse cases involving husbands and wives who have assaulted each other. Trying to get to the truth of the matter was extremely difficult. Both sides were so angry with one another that they were willing to do or say anything to get the ex-spouse in trouble. Each appeared to have a motive to lie or exaggerate about the violent behavior of the other spouse, and jurors had difficulty discerning the truth amid all the anger and embellishment.
These four critical areas should be examined before we trust an eyewitness. If we can establish that a witness was present, has been accurate and honest in the past, is verified by additional evidence, and has no motive to lie, we can trust what the witness has to say.
A Disagreement Is Not a Disqualifier
SO, WHY CAN’T THEY AGREE?
If there’s one thing my experience as a detective has revealed, however, it’s that witnesses often make conflicting and inconsistent statements when describing what they saw at a crime scene. They frequently disagree with one another and either fail to see something obvious or describe the same event in a number of conflicting ways. The more witnesses involved in a case, the more likely there will be points of disagreement.
I can remember a particular homicide that occurred in a restaurant parking lot in our town, late one rainy night, well after our homicide team went home for the day. Patrol officers responded to the scene and discovered that the suspect was already long gone. The officers located three witnesses and interviewed them very briefly. They quickly recognized that the murder investigation would require the involvement of our team. Radio dispatch called our sergeant, and he began waking us up by telephone, summoning four of us to handle the investigation. It took me nearly an hour to get into a suit and drive to the location of the crime. When I got there, I discovered that the officers gathered the witnesses and put them in the backseat of their police unit so they wouldn’t get drenched in the rain. This simple act of kindness nearly ruined the case.
I learned many years ago the importance of separating witnesses. If eyewitnesses are quickly separated from one another, they are far more likely to provide an uninfluenced, pure account of what they saw. Yes, their accounts will inevitably differ from the accounts of others who witnessed the same event, but that is the natural result of a witness’s past experience, perspective, and worldview. I can deal with the inconsistencies; I expect them. But when witnesses are allowed to sit together (prior to being interviewed) and compare notes and observations, I’m likely to get one harmonized version of the event. Everyone will offer the same story. While this may be tidier, it will come at the sacrifice of some important detail that a witness is willing to forfeit in order to align his or her story with the other witnesses. I’m not willing to pay that price. I would far rather have three messy, apparently contradictory versions of the event than one harmonized version that has eliminated some important detail. I know in the end I’ll be able to determine the truth of the matter by examining all three stories. The apparent contradictions are usually easy to explain once I learn something about the witnesses and their perspectives (both visually and personally) at the time of the crime.
Let me give you an example. Many years ago I investigated a robbery in which a male suspect entered a small grocery store, walked up to the counter, and calmly contacted the cashier. The suspect removed a handgun from his waistband and placed it on the counter. He pointed it at the cashier, using his right hand to hold the gun on the counter, his finger on the trigger. The suspect quietly told the cashier to empty the register of its money and place it in a plastic bag. The cashier complied and gave the robber all the money in the drawer. The robber then calmly walked from the store. This robbery was observed by two witnesses, who were properly separated and interviewed apart from one another. When the crime report was assigned to me as the investigator, I read the officer’s summary and wondered if the witnesses were describing the same robber:
At first, these statements seemed to describe two different men committing two different crimes. But, the more I spoke with the witnesses, the more I realized that both were reliable in spite of the fact they seemed to be saying different things about the suspect. Sylvia Ramos was hurrying home from work and stopped at the store to purchase some milk and a few small items. She stood in line behind the suspect as he calmly committed the robbery. While she heard the tone of his voice, she never heard his words distinctly, and she never saw a gun. She described him as a polite young man in his teens. Based on the way the cashier handed the robber the bag, Sylvia believed that the robber made a purchase prior to committing the crime. Sylvia immediately recognized the suspect’s blue shirt as a classic IZOD polo because many of the men in her office wore this style of shirt when she first started her career as a designer. In fact, she had recently purchased one for her husband. Sylvia watched the robber walk slowly out of the business and across the parking lot as he left the area. She was sure that he didn’t have a “getaway” car.
Paul Meher was visiting the cashier when the robbery occurred. The cashier was an old friend from high school, and Paul was standing behind the counter with his friend at the time of the crime. Paul couldn’t remember many details related to the suspect’s clothing, but believed that he was wearing a T-shirt. He was certain, however, that the robber pointed a gun at his friend, and he recognized this pistol as a Ruger P95 because his father owned one that was identical. Paul focused on the gun during most of the robbery, but he also observed that the suspect scowled and had a menacing expression on his face. The robber spoke his words slowly and deliberately in a way that Paul interpreted as threatening. Paul described the man as just slightly older than him, at approximately twenty-four to twenty-five years of age. He was certain that the suspect made no effort to purchase anything prior to the crime, and afterward, Paul had a visual angle through the glass storefront that allowed him to see that the robber walked to the end of the parking lot, then ran to a tan-colored, 1990s Nissan four-door.
Once I interviewed these two witnesses, I understood why they seemed to disagree on several key points. In the end, many things impact the way witnesses observe an event. A lot depends on where a witness is located in relationship to the action. We’ve also got to consider the personal experiences and interests that cause some witnesses to focus on one aspect of the event and some to focus on another. Sylvia was older and had difficulty estimating the age of the suspect, but her design interests and experience with her husband helped her to correctly identify the kind of shirt the robber wore. Paul had personal experience with pistols and was sitting in a position that gave him an entirely different perspective as he watched the robbery unfold. As the detective handling the case, it was my job to understand each witness well enough to take the best they had to offer and come to a conclusion about what really happened. Every case I handle is like this; witnesses seldom agree on every detail. In fact, when two people agree completely on every detail of their account, I am inclined to believe that they have either contaminated each other’s observations or are working together to pull the wool over my eyes. I expect truthful, reliable eyewitnesses to disagree along the way.
THE LAST WITNESS TO BE INTERVIEWED
Before I move away from this issue, it’s important to add one final observation. I’ve worked a number of murder cases where there were many eyewitnesses who had to be interviewed. While at the scene, I took each witness off to the side to get his or her account without the input of other eyewitnesses. On one occasion, I discovered that an additional, previously unidentified witness was quietly standing within earshot of my interviews, waiting for an opportunity to talk to me. Up to this point, none of the officers or detectives was even aware of the fact that this person had seen anything, so while I was happy to hear what she had to say, it was clear that she had not been isolated. She was already aware of what others had described. When interviewed, she actually provided important information that the other witnesses had missed completely. I was grateful that she had been patient and waited to identify herself to us.
The Early Recognition of the Eyewitnesses
I observed something interesting about her statement, however. Because she had been eavesdropping on the interviews we were conducting and was already aware of what others said, she was inclined to skip over the details that had been offered by the first witnesses. She did an excellent job of filling in the blanks, but a poor job of covering the essential details of the crime that others had already described. If I had not repeatedly asked her to start at the beginning and tell me everything she saw, she would undoubtedly have given me an incomplete account that, if compared to the first statements of eyewitnesses, would have looked like a contradiction. In my years of collecting eyewitness statements, I’ve come to recognize that witnesses who are already aware of what has been offered are far more likely to simply supply the missing details. While this witness may offer something that’s critical to the case and was previously unknown, he or she may also offer a version that is less detailed in many ways.
THE GOSPEL WRITERS AS EYEWITNESSES
Growing up as a skeptic, I never thought of the biblical narrative as an eyewitness account. Instead, I saw it as something more akin to religious mythology—a series of stories designed to make a point. But when I read through the Gospels (and then the letters that followed them), it appeared clear that the writers of Scripture identified themselves as eyewitnesses and viewed their writings as testimony. Peter identified himself as a “witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Pet. 5:1) and as one of many “eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16–17). The apostle John claimed that he was writing as an eyewitness when he described the life and death of Jesus. He identified himself as “the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things” (John 21:24), and said that he was reporting “what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands” (1 John 1:1). The apostles saw themselves first and foremost as a group of eyewitnesses, and they understood that their shared observations were a powerful testimony to what they claimed to be true. When Judas left the group, they quickly replaced him and demonstrated the high value they placed on their status as eyewitnesses. They set out to choose one “of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us” (Acts 1:21–22). They replaced Judas with another eyewitness.
The Committed Biblical Witnesses
As I read through the book of Acts, I realized that the apostles repeatedly identified themselves as eyewitnesses and called upon their testimony as the foundation for all their preaching and teaching. In Peter’s very first sermon at Pentecost, he told the crowd that the disciples “are all witnesses” of the fact of the resurrection (Acts 2:32), and he repeated this claim later at Solomon’s Colonnade (Acts 3:15). When Peter and John were eventually arrested for testifying about the resurrection, they told the members of the Sanhedrin, “We cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20), and they promptly returned to the streets where they “were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 4:33). Over and over again, the apostles clearly identified themselves as “witnesses of all the things He [Jesus] did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem” (Acts 10:39), and used this status as the foundation for everything they taught. Even Paul relied on his status as an eyewitness. When Christian communities began to blossom across Asia Minor, Paul wrote to many of them and identified himself both as an apostle and as someone who could testify as an eyewitness. Paul said that Jesus “appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also” (1 Cor. 15:7–8).
As the apostles began to write out their eyewitness observations, early Christians gave these accounts great authority and respect. In fact, as the “canon” of emerging New Testament Scripture was examined by the church fathers (the early leaders of the growing Christian community), the issue of apostolic authority was the first and foremost criterion for whether or not a particular writing made it into the collection. Was the text written by an apostolic eyewitness (Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, et al.) or by someone who at least had meaningful access to one or more of these eyewitnesses (e.g., Mark and Luke)? Only the accounts of the original eyewitnesses were given serious consideration, and the Gospels have always been understood as a set of eyewitness accounts.
The question, of course, is whether or not they can be trusted, and that’s the focus of the second section of this book. We’ll investigate the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, asking the same kinds of questions that judges encourage jurors to ask of witnesses in criminal proceedings. We’ll ask if the apostolic eyewitnesses were present at the events that have been recorded. We’ll ask if they were accurate and honest. We’ll ask if their testimony can be verified in some way. Finally, we’ll investigate whether or not they had an ulterior motive. When jury members conclude that a witness can be trusted, they must come to grips with what the witness has to say and use this testimony as the foundation for future decisions they may make about the truth of the case. If the gospel writers are found to be reliable, we can accept their statements as the foundation for future decisions we make about the truth of Jesus’s life and God’s existence.
THE EXPECTATIONS FROM EXPERIENCE
Before I ever examined the reliability of the gospel accounts, I had a reasonable expectation about what a dependable set of eyewitness statements might look like, given my experience as a detective. When more than one witness observes a crime, I expect to see the following characteristics in their statements:
THEIR STATEMENTS WILL BE PERSPECTIVAL
Each eyewitness will describe the event from his or her spatial and emotional perspective. Not everyone will be in the same position to see the same series of events or the same details. I will have to puzzle together statements that might at first appear contradictory; each statement will be colored by the personal experiences and worldviews of the witnesses.
THEIR STATEMENTS WILL BE PERSONAL
Each eyewitness will describe the event in his or her own language, using his or her own expressions and terms. As a result, the same event may be described with varying degrees of passion or with divergent details that are simply the result of individual tastes and interests.
Perspectives and Biblical Inerrancy
THEIR STATEMENTS MAY CONTAIN AREAS OF COMPLETE AGREEMENT
Some aspects of each eyewitness statement may be completely identical. This is particularly true when witnesses describe aspects of the crime that were dramatic or important to the sequence of events. It’s also true when later witnesses are aware of what others have offered and simply affirm the prior description by telling me, “The rest occurred just the way he said.”
LATER STATEMENTS MAY FILL IN THE GAPS
Finally, as described earlier, I expect late witnesses who are aware of prior statements to simply fill in what has not been said previously.
It turns out that my expectations of true, reliable eyewitness accounts are met (at least preliminarily and superficially) by the Gospels. All four accounts are written from a different perspective and contain unique details that are specific to the eyewitnesses. There are, as a result, divergent (apparently contradictory) recollections that can be pieced together to get a complete picture of what occurred. All four accounts are highly personal, utilizing the distinctive language of each witness. Mark is far more passionate and active in his choice of adjectives, for example. Several of the accounts (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) contain blocks of identical (or nearly identical) descriptions. This may be the result of common agreement at particularly important points in the narrative, or (more likely) the result of later eyewitnesses saying, “The rest occurred just the way he said.” Finally, the last account (John’s gospel) clearly attempts to fill in the details that were not offered by the prior eyewitnesses. John, aware of what the earlier eyewitnesses had already written, appears to make little effort to cover the same ground. Even before examining the Gospels with the rigor we are going to apply in section 2, I recognized that they were consistent with what I would expect to see, given my experience as a detective.
THE RELIABLE BIBLE
In the end, it all comes down to the reliability of these accounts. When I was a nonbeliever, I heard Christians talk about the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible, at least as these terms are typically applied to the original manuscripts that were composed by the authors. I examined these concepts in depth in seminary many years later, but as I first read the accounts in the Gospels, I was far more interested in evaluating their reliability as eyewitness accounts than their inerrancy as divine communiqués. I knew from my experience as a detective that the best eyewitness accounts contained points of disagreement and that this did not automatically invalidate their reliability.
If it was God’s desire to provide us with an accurate and reliable account of the life of Jesus, an account we could trust and recognize as consistent with other forms of eyewitness testimony, God surely accomplished it with the four gospel accounts. Yes, the accounts are messy. They are filled with idiosyncrasies and personal perspectives along with common retellings of familiar stories. There are places where critics can argue that there appear to be contradictions, and there are places where each account focuses on something important to the author, while ignoring details of importance to other writers. But would we expect anything less from true, reliable eyewitness accounts? I certainly would not, based on what I’ve seen over the years.
Surely these apparent “contradictions” and curious peculiarities were present in the early texts and obvious to the earliest of Christians. The oldest gospel manuscripts we have display this sort of eyewitness variability, and there is no reason to think the originals were any less unique or idiosyncratic. The early believers could have destroyed all but one of the accounts, changed the conflicting details, or simply harmonized the Gospels. But these diverse accounts were preserved (as they are) because they are true; they display all the earmarks we would expect in true eyewitness testimony. If the early church had eliminated the four eyewitness perspectives and limited us to one tidy version, we would inevitably have missed some significant detail. If I had tried to clean up the apparent contradictions between Sylvia’s and Paul’s testimonies, I may have ignored the clear descriptions of the gun and the shirt. Instead, I took Sylvia and Paul at their word, learned about their personal perspectives, and wrote a search warrant for these two items. I recovered both the shirt and the pistol and eventually used these pieces of evidence to convict the robber in this case.
NOT ALL MEMORIES ARE CREATED EQUALLY
Sylvia and Paul were reliable eyewitnesses, even though their individual perspectives framed their observations of the robbery in unique ways. But what if many years passed before their testimony was required in court? Couldn’t the passage of time impact their memories of the event? We’ve all forgotten details from past events; we understand what it is like to struggle with a particular memory. Isn’t it possible, reasonable in fact, that Sylvia and Paul might forget or confuse some important detail of this robbery?
Much has been written in recent years about the “unreliability” of eyewitness testimony over time, especially as cases that previously hinged on eyewitness identification have been overturned by new DNA evidence. In fact, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently pointed to cases such as these and cited a “troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications.” As a result, the court issued new rules to make it easier for defendants to challenge eyewitness evidence in criminal cases.20 Given that some eyewitness identifications have been overturned by DNA evidence, why should we trust eyewitness testimony about an event in the past?
In my experience as a cold-case detective, I’ve learned that not all memories are created equally. Let me give you an example. If you asked me what I did five years ago on Valentine’s Day (February 14 here in the United States), I may or may not be able to remember many of the details. I probably took my wife out for dinner or maybe a short vacation. I could probably tax my memory and recall the day with some accuracy, but I may confuse it with other Valentine’s Day memories; after all, I’ve got thirty-three memories of Valentine’s Day with my wife to sift through (we started dating in 1979). This day was important to me, so it may stick out in my memory a bit more than other days in February, but if you ask me for specific chronological details, I may struggle to recall the particulars from Valentine’s Day five years ago.
But if you ask me to recall the specifics of Valentine’s Day in 1988, I can provide you with a much more accurate recollection. This was the day that Susie and I were married. It definitely sticks out in my mind. I can remember the details with much more precision because this event was unequaled in my life and experience. It’s the only time I’ve ever been married, and the excitement and importance of the event were unparalleled for me. Valentine’s Day stands out when compared to other days in February, but this Valentine’s Day was even more special. Not all memories are equally important or memorable.
When eyewitnesses encounter an event that is similarly unique, unrepeated, and powerful, they are far more likely to remember it and recall specific details accurately. Sylvia and Paul had never observed a robbery prior to the one they observed in the liquor store. It was a unique, unrepeated event. As such, it stuck out in their minds and memories. This doesn’t mean that their testimonies ought to be accepted without testing; the four criteria we’ve already described in this chapter must still be applied to Sylvia and Paul. We still have to determine if they were present to see the robbery and have a history of honesty and accuracy. We still need to determine if their testimonies can be corroborated by additional evidence and examine their motives to make sure they are not lying. If these criteria can be met, we have good reason to trust their testimonies as reliable.
THE UNEQUALED EVENTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
I remember the day I was married because it was unique, unrepeated, and personally important. Now put yourself in the shoes of the apostles as they witnessed the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. None of these eyewitnesses had ever seen anyone like Jesus before. He did more than teach them important lessons; He astonished the eyewitnesses with miracles that were unique and personally powerful. The apostles experienced only one Jesus in their lifetime; they observed only one man rise from the dead. The resurrection was unique, unrepeated, and powerful.
The gospel eyewitnesses observed a singularly powerful and memorable event and provided us with accounts that are distinctive, idiosyncratic, personal, and reliable. We simply have to take the time to understand the perspective and character of each eyewitness and then determine if the accounts are trustworthy given the four criteria we have described (more on that in section 2).
A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE CHECKLIST
This may be one of the most important principles we can tuck away in our callout bag. Unless you’ve worked a lot with eyewitnesses and have become familiar with the nature of apparent contradictions in eyewitness accounts, it’s easy to assume that people are lying (or are mistaken) simply because they don’t agree on every detail or have ignored some facts in favor of others. If nothing else, we have to remember that an eyewitness account can be reliable in spite of apparent contradictions. While we might complain about two accounts that appear to differ in some way, we would be even more suspicious if there were absolutely no peculiarities or differences. If this were the case with the Gospels, I bet we would argue that they were the result of some elaborate collusion. As we examine the gospel accounts, we need to give the writers the same benefit of the doubt we would give other eyewitnesses. Human eyewitnesses produce human eyewitness accounts; they are often idiosyncratic and personal, but reliable nonetheless.
As a Christian, I recognize that the Bible is God’s Word, but I also recognize that it was delivered to us through the observations and recollections of human eyewitnesses. Before I share that the Bible has something important to offer, I typically take the time to make a case for why the Bible has something important to offer. It’s important for people to see that the writers identified themselves as eyewitnesses. They weren’t writing moral fiction. They were recording what they saw with their own eyes, heard with their own ears, and touched with their own hands. Let’s recognize the importance of biblical reliability and help our skeptical friends recognize the nature of personal, reliable eyewitness testimony. Many of us have seen or heard something during the course of our lives that forever changed the way we thought about the world around us. That’s precisely what happened to the gospel writers. Their observations changed them forever, and their testimony can change the world we live in.
CASE NOTES
18. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 105.
19. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 105.
20. Benjamin Weiser, “In New Jersey, Rules Are Changed on Witness IDs,” New York Times, August 24, 2011, accessed April 18, 2012, www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/nyregion/in-new-jersey-rules-changed-on-witness-ids.html.