THE INVESTIGATOR-WITNESS RELATIONSHIP

 

In the 50 years of CIOVI's existence, I was active in Uruguay from before its foundation on April 29, 1958, until its closure in 2008. 

Since I left Uruguay in 1989, I must deduct 19 years from the total existence of the Center. And I am personally persuaded that if I had continued to be in Uruguay, this would not have happened.

But these are 31 years dedicated to the investigation and study of UFO reports from all parts of the country. This led us to meet witnesses in distant places such as the Departments of Artigas, Rivera, Tacuarembó, and others as close as Canelones or San José, without forgetting Colonia to the West, and Maldonado and Rocha to the East.  

As the cases accumulated, so did the experience. To such an extent that the description of what was seen led us directly to their solution. Example: the reports raised by the Echo I and II satellites, in their time, and by the lights of the landing gear of airplanes coming from Buenos Aires to Carrasco.

As it can be nowadays the rows of Starlink satellites, or the passage of the International Space Station, or the Chinese Space Station.

Initially, in each case there are two permanent factors: a) the witness saw something that surprised him and that he could not identify by himself; b) it is possible that to the case is added the interest that the subject has awakened in the witness, the things he has read, seen on TV, in movies, and the comments of friends or of some group to which he may belong. 

These are extra factors that add to the witness' confusion. But - except in two or three cases where there was a deliberate trick and interest in “selling” the case that included photos, people have always declared the truth without any hidden spurious interest.

For the investigator, the initial connection with the witness also implies that through the way he/she expresses him/herself, the conviction he/she conveys, collateral data that can be gathered about the sincerity of the person, or whether he/she is someone prone to create fantastic stories, an image and assessment of the personality with whom he/she is dealing with is obtained.

The hard data alone will indicate the direction of the investigation to take and the results to look for. 

Beyond the conviction of the witness and the honesty of the same in the story, the investigator is obliged to find the truth, which starts from the same testimony collected, but differs in the interpretation of the same because it is subjected to factors that the witness does not control but that may end up explaining the reality of the case and its true nature.

And that process that the investigator is obliged to do, is what will define exactly what happened, what attracted the attention of the witness and led him to report what he/she experienced.

In the overwhelming majority of cases - in my experience I think I can risk saying that in 98% of the reports - what we receive from the witnesses was the truth of what happened, sifted by their lack of knowledge that does not allow them to identify what they are seeing. What follows is the real truth, the product of the investigation and study of the case. 

In the end, both accounts are reconciled. The original one from the witness, and the one that emerges as a result of the investigation and study. The case is then complete.

Is the investigator going to approach the witness with prejudice, with a doubt about the person of the witness and his or her testimony? That tarnishes the investigation process itself. 

Is the investigator going to approach the witness with enthusiasm, hoping that his case will confirm the idea that the investigator has about the nature of the phenomenon under investigation and even its origin? That's no good either, because it negates the value of a conclusion. It will not be scientific at all.

The researcher's approach to the case demands absolute neutrality. It must be based on what emerges from the investigation, in terms of data of what happened and the personality of the witness.

Another circumstance is that of a case with multiple witnesses. The imperative is to separate them and interview each one in that manner. Then compare their statements and verify if there are differences, and if they are substantial, re-interview them separately, and if the difference persists, meet with both to resolve the discrepancies. 

The complexity of the case will determine whether the investigator should seek the advice of professionals in certain specialties, which may even lead to analyses of various kinds.

Once all this material has been gathered, it will be possible for the investigator (or rather, the investigative team) to study, evaluate all the material and verify whether a valid, honest and safe conclusion can be reached.

This is how complex the task of investigation and study is.  

There are cases that can be solved immediately, others that can take months. It is worth the patience, the effort and the will of the investigator to to reach the truth and reveal the apparent mystery. 

And in the end, there is the satisfaction of a duty fulfilled.

A task based on knowledge and the  the scientific method, the application of the "Occam's razor" and the intellectual honesty.

[Translation using free DeepL with edition made by Milton W. Hourcade)