the cellar steps, and hearing everything. Since the victim, like the accused, was a homosexual, his mind would be incontinent; and it seemed to me that if his story were untrue (which was what I was told), there would be no mechanism in his mind to pinpoint the day the blackmail began, the day his life became black night. So I asked him about the date, and at first he said it was three weeks before the visit of the Police. We then covered holidays he had with attractive young men in Denmark, Iceland and other exotic places; and when I thought he might have forgotten his first answer, I asked him again when the blackmail began? This time he said it was ten years before! I may have used my old-fashioned views on human conduct in deciding what questions to ask, but there was no trickery in the questioning, and it was essential there should be none. The jury did not apparently like this kind of evidence, and after a lot of hesitation acquitted. To get results in questioning witnesses, it is essential not to upset the prejudices and sense of fairness of those who are listening. To be sure of this, you subscribe to those prejudices and to that sense of fairness while you are talking. So the witness blunders of his own free will.
From the community point of view then, a man expresses in action such shared beliefs as his relationship with his immediate companions allows. When one does one's job in collaboration with other people, the way one does it, therefore, is an expression of one's relationship with one's colleagues, and is a function of it. In ordinary language one is a member of a team, however loosely knit the team may be. And as anyone who has been a member of any sort of team knows, there is a world of difference in practice between a team, and a collection of individuals. When one belongs to a team, one does not any longer indulge in individual actions; one's actions harmonize with those of the team as a whole. The team relationship, then, imposes a rigid control over the actions of the members of the team.