A Method for Sifting Participants' Statements for the Truth
Confessions
As Louis Gottschalk said in Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, "when a statement is prejudicial to a witness, his dear ones, or his causes, it is likely to be truthful." Or as said elsewhere, "an admission against self-interest, other things being equal, is most convincing." Thus, confessions "are considered excellent testimony, sometimes acceptable in law courts without other direct testimony."
Applying this to the militia participants in the massacre, we may conclude that if a militiaman confessed to participation in the massacre, these statements are most likely true, especially when independently verified.
Denials and Blame-shifting
We are naturally skeptical, however, of statements from suspects in crime that involve excuses, denials or blame-shifting accusations against others. Our skepticism is grounded in commonsense. "The danger is," as the nineteenth-century English judge Lord Abinger expressed it, "that when a man is fixed, and knows that his own guilt is detected, he purchases immunity by falsely accusing others."
The accomplice entertains the hope that he may obtain lenient treatment by shifting blame to others. This is the danger in accomplice accusations against co-conspirators. From this recognition arose the practice of judges instructing their juries that "they ought not to pay any respect to the testimony of an accomplice unless the accomplice is corroborated. . . ."
Incidental Details
The militia statements also contain a third element which we may designate as "incidental detail." These are elements in the narrative that are neither part of the defense nor of the (possibly unintended) confessions. These are elements about which each narrator would have "no reason to lie." When independently verified from other sources, these elements are likewise treated as reliable.
Within each militia statement we may find elements of varying degrees of veracity. The most reliable elements are those in which the narrator confesses involvement in crime or describes "incidental details," particularly where these are independently verified. The least reliable is his "defense," the excuses, evasions, denials and accomplice accusations against his fellow conspirators.
In conclusion, if there is a bedrock truth that we can "know" about the massacre, it will be found in confessions independently verified.
Sources
Gottschalk, Louis, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950, revd. 1969), 150-57 .
Gray, Wood, ed., Historian's Handbook: A Key to the Study and Writing of History (1956, rev. 1964, reissued Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press, 2001), 58.
Howell, Martha and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2001), 70-71.
Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law,10 vols., (1904, rvd. James H. Chadbourn, Aspen Law & Business, 1970), 7:417, quoting Lord Abinger, C. B., in R. v. Farler, 8 Car. & P. 106, 107-108 (1837).
Send questions or comments to editor@1857ironcountymilitia.com
