|
In Reply to: Re: You were so brave posted by Observer on November 11, 2005 at 12:38:40:
Perhaps the facial expressions and tone of voice of witnesses informed part of Justice Ward's findings of credibility or not, he is human after all and susceptible to those influences, but those are not always the best indicators of truthfulness and lawyers know that (judges are lawyers remember). They might fool jurors, but lawyers are trained to look beyond body language. For example, cultural differences can complicate the interpretation of such body language. Some people are raised in environments where it is impolite, or even worse, to look another person straight in the eyes. Other's are raised to believe that if someone doesn't look you straight in the eyes they are being dishonest or hiding something. Which is correct?
Natalie hit on an important point in this regard when she said: "I did not under any circumstance do this for so called fame as this person has sugested,why would i want to be famous for being abused it was and has been the most embarassing time of my life post family/cog...". If you compare the possible motives for witnesses on both sides of the BI case it's clear that the pro-Family witnesses had every reason to lie to the judge. On the otherhand, witnesses testifying to abuses they suffered in TF had nothing to gain by publicly testifying and revealing very intimate details of their lives. Most people would prefer to avoid the added stress, pain, embarrassment, etc., that publicizing their ordeal would bring.
So you're right, Observer, that the presence of witnesses testifying in person to some of the atrocities committed by TF was crucial to the BI case, but I think facial expressions and tone of voice only played a small part in Ward's findings of witness credibility.
