Reading a Witness Statement for Contradiction
An officer is reviewing a written witness statement submitted after a store alarm activation. The statement reads: "I was standing at the register facing the front door at 9:15 p.m. I had a clear view of the entrance. I saw a man in a red jacket run out at a sprint. About two minutes later I looked at my phone and it was 9:12 p.m. I did not see anyone else leave. The back exit was locked all evening; I checked it myself at closing." A separate report notes the store's only working clock is the register display, which the manager says runs 6 minutes fast. The officer must decide how much weight to give the witness's timeline and identification.
1. Identify the internal contradiction in the statement and explain how the clock discrepancy affects the timeline.
Read the worked answer
Internal contradiction: The witness says they were watching at "9:15 p.m." but then reports checking the phone at "9:12 p.m." two minutes later. Time cannot move backward - 9:15 plus two minutes should be 9:17, not 9:12. This is either a transcription error or a genuine memory inconsistency, and it undermines the precision of the stated times.
Clock discrepancy: The register clock runs 6 minutes fast, so a display reading of 9:15 is actually 9:09 real time, and a phone reading of 9:12 (if the phone is accurate) is 9:12 real time. If the witness read the register at "9:15," the true time was 9:09 - but the phone said 9:12, which is later, not earlier. Either way the two readings cannot both be right.
Weight: The timeline is unreliable as stated; the officer should treat the times as approximate and corroborate with the register's transaction log or camera timestamps rather than the witness's recollection.
2. The witness says the back exit was locked and no one else left. How should the officer weigh this against the possibility that the suspect used the back exit?
Read the worked answer
What the statement actually establishes: The witness checked the back exit "at closing" - not at 9:15. So the claim that it was "locked all evening" is an inference, not a direct observation at the relevant time. The witness cannot personally vouch for the state of the door at 9:15.
What the witness did observe: A clear view of the front door and a man in a red jacket leaving at a sprint. That is direct, and it is the strongest part of the statement.
Gap: "I did not see anyone else leave" only covers what was in the witness's line of sight (the front). It says nothing about the back. So the statement does not rule out a back-exit departure; it only rules out a second front departure.
Recommendation: Treat the back exit as still open. Verify the door's lock status and any alarm/access log for the 9:00–9:20 window before relying on the witness's "locked all evening" claim.
3. The suspect is described only as "a man in a red jacket." What is the evidentiary value of this description, and what should the officer do with it?
Read the worked answer
Evidentiary value: Low on its own. "A man in a red jacket" is a class-level description - it does not distinguish this person from anyone else wearing red that night. It is useful as a corroborating detail if video or another witness independently places a red-jacketed man at the scene, but it cannot support an identification by itself.
Why it's weak here: No height, build, face, direction of travel, or distinguishing features. Combined with the unreliable timeline, the description should not be used to detain or accuse a specific person.
What to do: (1) Pull camera footage for the 9:00–9:20 window to get a better description; (2) canvass for other witnesses; (3) record the red-jacket detail in the report as a lead, not a conclusion; (4) avoid suggesting a suspect to the witness in any follow-up (no leading show-ups based on clothing alone).