However we must return to the idea that for most of us actions are the putting into practice of confidence and lack of confidence at the same time.
Now it is elementary in advocacy that the way a witness gives his evidence depends to quite a degree on the way he is handled by his advocate. Judges sometimes seem slow to realise it in practice; but everyone pays lip-service to the theory that examination-in-chief is a harder test for the advocate than cross-examination. And it is elementary that the way you ask a witness questions depends to quite a degree on the sort of person he is. (It also depends naturally on the sort of facts you are asking him to give evidence about). The actual phrasing of the questions is of course almost entirely a matter of professional instinct. One will have seen the client before the case begins, one will have seen the sort of person he is, and one may have noticed one or two character traits; but again the process of taking account of these is largely professional instinct, and not conscious thought or analysis. But the witnesses one has not seen until they appear in the witness box; so that one's handling of them is based entirely on professional experience. It is equally elementary that the way a witness responds and gives evidence depends partly on the sort of…