New Britain herald., 1929-11-04

see what happened. let It haS been shown time and again that from several to a dozen witnesses may have divergent knowledge of what they saw. They all saw the same incident, but will be in the position of the audience watching the sleight Of hand performer.
 Regardless Of this known fact, inn portant law cases, especially criminal cases. arc frequently dccid- ed upon such evidence. The only reason probably is because there is no other known method.
 Some years ago a pamphlet was written by the late George +. Crocker concerning an experiment made at Boston club. Courtcnay Crocker. a son Of the author, loaned the pamphlet, which is now rare and probably nearly out of print, to the Boston Herald, which cuiled from it the following remarkable incident:
 The pamphlet tells, in the best legal manner, of very brief play or scene which was enacted at the Union club in Boston on the after noon Of Feb 25, 1910. Besides the four factors" there were present as
 alIijenCa or u-it0ecccS. "o0r iuStirn Of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. retired; one civil en-
 sineer; four business men (aCtive); three business mon (retired): eleven
 lawyers" Surely here were 20 men
 who could he expected to observe events intellgently and remember them correctly,
 "The little play-it took less than a minute to perform-Was presented by Frank Brewster, John Woodbury,
 Paul Barron Watson and Mir, Crock
 or. It told this story: An investor
 enters a stock brokers office and
 gives an order for the purchase of one stock and the sale of two others. The broker repeats tho order
 GlObu dS lie " IlttS IL lu" IT. " iili- the investor is transa ctinc his husi- ness, he lays his poCkcthook down
 on the desk. X third man enters and
 asks casual question ot tho broker. meanwhile dropping his handker- chief on the pocketbook. He then
 picks up both handkerchief and pocketbook and departs. The invest
 or, who has been examining his papers, also leaves. but in going out through the door Collides with 9 fourth man who comes in 10 ask the broker for quotation. The investor returns hurredly. saying that he has lost his pockctbook.
 "Three Of the witnesses did not
 write down their version Of the per formanco, but what did the other 17 sec and hear? Tn reading the several accounts Mir. Crocker wrote in explanation. it should be borne in mind that there were two principal incidents. The first was the fact that the order as repeated by the broker differed from the order as given. The second was the stealing of the pocketbook. These happen ines were not correctly reported by any one of the witnesses. The pocketbook. which was left by the investor on the white tablecloth, in full view Of every one present, was black and measured about four and a half by two and half inches
 "The statements of the bystanders reveal that they understood very lit 1 tie of what took place, or that they i were unable to retain in their
 memories all that they saw or heard, All of them realized that the investor had lost his pocketbook (because he said he had), and few were able to repeat correctly his order 10 the | broker, but not one noticed who actually took the pocketbook. It is obvious that on the strength of their stories the police would have arrest ed the man with whom the investor collided in the doorway, instead of
 the actual thief
 Police rarely arc on the scene when something happens. Neither are reporters. All gain their knowl- edge Of an event from the testimony of eye witnesses, and in the case of the police they are usually utilized as
 witnesses, It is to be hoped, at least, that few witnesses are as far at sea as those who participated in the l test case made in 1910.