from these perceptions and the facts themselves. It does not want to
hear what someone thinks, or what the witness believes or concludes,
but only what he perceived.

There is much to be said for and against this rule on both sides. A
broader method to the lawyer seems shockingly loose and slipshod. The
rules of evidence to the bystander seem an inhuman farce. The first
allows an atmosphere to be created from which the whole truth may be
reached. Would not an ordinary person, if he wanted to find out about
the accident, read the newspapers, find out the police reports, ask
what a witness thought, what that witness told someone else about the
accident afterward? Is she not now giving someone an account of the
accident?

Psychologists agree that no one can accurately narrate their
perceptions and what happens before their eyes. Moreover, the tests
performed on school and college graduates in regard to their powers of
observation have shown the fallibility of human perception. The
failure to perceive, plus the failure to remember, plus inadequacy of
language, makes all testimony unsatisfactory. People of little
education are still less able to either see or explain. The only safe
way is to obtain a composite photograph of the witness's mind and of
the thoughts that arise from the original perception, a continuation
of impressions.

Judges or juries never determine cases by first deciding which witness
is telling the truth or at least the exact truth. They take it for
granted that both sides are lying somewhat; that no matter how well
they mean and how hard they try, all witnesses are incapable of
telling the exact truth. The unfortunate part of the law is that this