The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth? : Criminal justice: When witnesses are well-rehearsed, what we hear in the courtroom is practiced memories.

Both proponents and opponents on the issue of O.J. Simpson’s guilt have one thing in common: They find themselves sometimes amused, sometimes bewildered, sometimes stunned over how conflicting the courtroom testimony has been. Conflicts have arisen not only between witnesses, but within the mind of a single witness at different stages of testimony.

* Detective Mark Fuhrman denied in court that he had used racial slurs to describe blacks during the past 10 years. But in subsequently discovered taped interviews he had given to a professor writing a screenplay, Fuhrman made numerous derogatory comments about blacks.

* Former juror Jeanette Harris claimed during jury selection to have a past free of abuse. But subsequently discovered records revealed that she’d once alleged rape by an abusive boyfriend. Judge Lance A. Ito discharged her from the jury for hiding (lying about) her experience.

* Criminalist Dennis Fung, a prosecution witness, altered his testimony about the circumstances surrounding his discovery of a pair of socks in Simpson’s bedroom. Fung attributed changes in his account to his memory being refreshed by videotapes and other witnesses.

* Simpson guest Kato Kaelin said in court that he was not working on a book about the case. But author Marc Elliot said the two had completed a manuscript titled “Star Witness.” The subtitle for this $250,000 book: “My Life with Nicole and O.J. Simpson: The Whole Truth.”

* Neighboring housekeeper Rosa Lopez said that Simpson’s car had not moved from its spot on the street outside his house all evening that June 12. But limousine driver Allan Park said he did not see the car when he arrived at 10:22 p.m., nor had neighbor Charles Cale seen the car when he was walking his dog an hour earlier. Cale told the jury he was “very certain” that the car wasn’t there.

Detectives, jurors, professionals and material witnesses in this extraordinary case seem to be continually contradicting one another, if not outright getting caught in apparent lies. How typical are these inconsistencies in American trials? Is O.J. Simpson’s trial different? Is it harder for witnesses to tell the truth?

The Simpson case is different--no question about it. It’s the most talked about subject at American dinner tables today. Vast amounts of money have been spent on experts and not-so-experts in a multitude of fields. Every aspect of testimony has been subjected to microscopically close scrutiny. Courtroom technology of the 21st Century arrived early for Simpson’s trial, enabling attorneys to get instant advice on how to demolish witnesses from experts sitting thousands of miles away watching the trial on Court TV and feeding their advice to the courtroom by fax.

Most of the witnesses seem to be exceptionally well-rehearsed. This beyond-scale preparation might not make witnesses more likely to tell the truth, but it could affect how likely they are to be accurate, and almost certainly how likely they are to influence the jury.

Here’s why: The more people think about an event from the past (the more they rehearse), the more confident they become in their memories. The problem is that they get more confident in their inaccurate memories as well as their accurate ones. And the more people are pressed for details about the past (the more they rehearse), the more details they try to dredge up as they desperately cast about to fill in blank spots in memory.

Psychological research has shown that juries are most impressed by witnesses who express ideas confidently and provide lots of details. Yet how confident and detailed witnesses are can bear little relationship to the accuracy of what they say. People can say “I’m absolutely certain” and offer lots of facts to support their testimony and still be dead wrong.

A healthy appreciation for the psychology of memory, in general, and the malleability of memory and its tenuous relationship to certainty focuses new light on the contradictions in the Simpson trial. When Rosa Lopez confidently says the car was there and Charles Cale says just as confidently that it was not, is someone lying? Not necessarily. They’ve both undoubtedly been well-rehearsed to say what they have publicly said. Their confident and detailed testimony could be diametrically opposed, but they still are plausibly telling the truth. Their own individual truth. Their own rehearsed truth.