Larry Warren's response to the forum (and John B)

[Dave100]

Nice to read Larrys comments,I was hoping he would join the forum and add his story as he is a very credible witness that has put up with a lot of unfair flak and criticism,he has never changed his story and those who know him personally will know that,he tells it as he saw it and he and the other witnesses deserve a lot of credit for keeping this important event(s)in the public eye, sometimes at a high personal cost.
Larrys perspective was different to Halts on the third night and other witnesses back his story.

[Andy]

I always maintained that all witness statements should be taken at face value. Then it's up to us to see how they stack up.
Obs

Observer, what do you mean by the expression 'at face value' ?

Silvertop

I've obviously missed something here, as i read Observer's posting in the context that i thought he meant it? To me 'at face value' means exactly that; and for those of us who wasn't there (which is the majority of us), it's wise advice. What personal judgements we may make thereafter is purely that ie purely personal.

[Deep Purple]

Face Value would mean that you accept the statements as the truth from that persons perspective, unless of course you have other information that they are deliberately lying or otherwise trying to skew the investigation.
The problem with all witness statements is that different people interpret the same things in different ways. For example if you look at the statements from a simple thing like a traffic light collission ( an every day occurrence) and you will see quite different versions of the same event. some people will remember very little , others will use their imagination to fill in the gaps. This is why witness evidence may be so open to questions. Some things you could be quite sure of for example if you were for example in the above traffic acccident you would know what car you were driving, but other things may happen so fast you dont really know what happened.
So imagine if you saw something truly weird, suddenly and unexpectedly this could give any individual enormous problems explaining what they saw. Now add in the age gap of time, the fact the some people may be making money out of the event, the fact that we as a forumn may be subject to attempts of disinformation then there is a big problem with witness statements/ evidence. Also witnesses making statements about the event are under no obligation to tell the truth---- they will not face conspiracy to pervert the course of justice charges or perjury.#
The way ahead is too accept statement at face value but try and obtain independent corroboration of their content and even when this does not fit bear in mind the witness may be 1) telling the truth 2) was confused 3) lying
Nice little problem eh?

[Observer]

Hi all

Been away for a bit, so have just seen these recent posts.

It was a standard procedure in the Police to take all statements [if there were several witnesses to the same incident] and face value was usually their intitial response and description of the incident. We had no reason to doubt their statements but were aware that further down the road flaws and inconsistancy between each witness can emerge. We were also very aware that witnesses saw things diferently and often from different perspectives. It was then up to us to find common denominators which was standard practice.
Its also a known fact that witnesses will make up a good part of their story basically to fill in the gaps. It is then down to the Police to see whats made up and whats fact.
So face value is the starting block of any enquiry which always remains fluid until facts are established.

I have just had a day at Bentwaters and a conducted tour of the airfield.

Obs