Zama: The Battle That Never Was?

[Renatus]

Eye-witness testimony is far less reliable than lie detectors. The only reason it is permitted in court is because of a centuries-old precedent, not because of any evidence of its efficacy.

I cannot agree with this. Eye-witness testimony is admitted because it attempts to describe what took place, which nothing else can do except CCTV footage and that does not include sound, where that is relevant. Lie detectors can do nothing except suggest that a person may be lying or is displaying the symptoms of lying (not necessarily the same thing). Where I do agree is that eye-witness testimony must be considered with care and I have long held the view (expressed by you in an earlier post) that, where there are several witnesses to an incident, you are likely to get as many versions of what took place as there are witnesses. Nevertheless, there is often nothing else and the courts (or, in our case, historians) must make the best of what they have. Naturally, corroboration will be sought in different witnesses recounting the same details and, the more there are, the stronger the corroboration. That said, consideration must be given to contradictory evidence and, if this is neglected, miscarriages of justice can occur.

I can give an example from my own experience. I was once involved in a murder trial in which I am convinced the wrong person was convicted (not my client, I am happy to say). There is no doubt that the defendant hit the victim; there was plenty of evidence of that. However, I believe that the fatal blow was struck by someone else. One witness alone saw it and that from a distance but there were other features of the evidence that support my interpretation. This is not the place to go into the details, although I will, if anyone is sufficiently interested. Suffice it to say that, in my opinion, insufficient attention was paid to this at the trial. The prosecution presumably did not attach the same importance to it as I do, otherwise the second person would have been the one prosecuted, and I believe that the defendant instructed his legal team not to take the point, as to do so would have involved accusing one of his friends of the murder. In short, it is my firm opinion that, in that case, the evidence of the one witness is to be preferred to the verdict of the jury.

To bring this back to topic, it is our task as historians to examine all the evidence presented to us by the authorities and to consider all its implications. This may result in some uncomfortable conclusions but better that than a slavish adherence to received wisdom, which can do nothing to advance historical knowledge. Of course, received wisdom may be right but it must be prepared to justify itself.