The Inconsistent Statement
Read the following account given by a detainee, then answer the questions.
'I was in the yard from about 2pm until the muster at 4. I sat with T the whole time near the far fence. Around 3 I went inside to use the toilet - maybe ten minutes - then came back out. T was still there. I didn't see anything happen and I didn't speak to anyone else. The officer called muster at 4 and we all lined up. That's all.'
A separate note records that the yard was closed for cleaning from 2:30pm to 3:15pm, and that all detainees were moved to the day room during that period. The muster at 4pm recorded all detainees present.
1. Identify the internal and external inconsistencies in the account and explain what each one undermines.
Read the worked answer
Internal: The account says he was in the yard 'from about 2pm until the muster at 4', but also that he went inside 'around 3' for about ten minutes. That is not necessarily contradictory - a brief absence is consistent with being in the yard for the period generally. The vagueness ('about', 'maybe') is notable but not itself an inconsistency.
External (the significant one): The yard was closed 2:30–3:15pm and everyone was moved to the day room. The account places him in the yard continuously across that window and places his toilet trip 'around 3' - i.e., during a period when he should have been in the day room. This undermines the reliability of his account of his own movements and, by extension, his claim to have been with T 'the whole time'.
What it does not establish: The muster confirms presence at 4pm, not whereabouts earlier. An inconsistent account is not proof of wrongdoing - it may reflect poor memory, confusion about times, or a wish to appear uninvolved.
2. The account is used to argue the detainee is lying about the whole incident. Evaluate that inference.
Read the worked answer
The inference is too strong as stated. A demonstrated error about the yard closure shows the account is unreliable on that point; it does not show the entire account is fabricated.
Points to weigh:
- Memory for times is genuinely weak. 'About 2', 'around 3', 'maybe ten minutes' are the kind of estimates people give honestly. The yard closure is a fact he may simply have misremembered or not registered.
- Motive matters. If he wished to appear uninvolved, placing himself in a busy yard with a named companion is a plausible way to do it - which cuts toward suspicion. But the same account could be a genuine but muddled recollection.
- Corroboration is available and should be sought. The day-room period may have its own record; T can be asked whether they were together; officers present during the closure can say where he was.
A sound conclusion: the account cannot be relied on for precise movements, and the discrepancy should be put to him for explanation, but 'he is lying about everything' overstates what one inconsistency supports.
3. Draft two questions you would put to the detainee to test the account fairly.
Read the worked answer
Questions should be open, non-leading, and test the specific gap without signalling the answer.
'Walk me through the afternoon again - where were you between half past two and quarter past three?' - This tests the closure window directly without telling him the yard was shut, so his answer is informative either way.
'You said T was with you the whole time. Was there any point in the afternoon when you and T were in different places?' - This tests the 'whole time' claim and gives him a fair opportunity to correct himself.
A third useful question: 'How confident are you about the times you've given - were you checking a clock?' This fairly probes the reliability of his estimates rather than treating vagueness as guilt. Tone should be neutral; the purpose is to gather accurate information, not to trap.