It'll be almost impossible. If there were a large number of witnesses, they will interact and corrupt each others story so thoroughly that nobody will accurately remember exactly what happened or was said. All will more or less contradict the others, and it will be a judgment call as to which version is closest. If there are more than 4 or 5 witnesses, and they know each other, it will be anybody's guess what really happened, and that's assuming they don't have some informal conspiracy to cook up a story. That's how you tell the story is perfected afterwards, when it matches up in nearly every detail.Jumping Frog wrote:Two words: voice recorder.
Or if you prefer one word: video.
I will not have any interaction with the government or an agent of the government that is not documented.
Failing that, seems like this was a public meeting with other members of the public present as witnesses. Shouldn't be too hard for the police to find out the real story.
Eye witness testimony is the least reliable and least satisfactory evidence there is, except police reports of eye witness statements, which are hearsay.
On the main point of reading the Constitution, I can see where that would be terrifying to a great many office holders, many of whom would be hearing it for the first time.