indisputable fact of intercourse by saying that he had had intercourse with the diminutive complainant on the cramped back seat of a Mini motor-car, when she was eager and he was not, 'out of the goodness of his heart'. His co-accused then decided it was prudent not to give evidence. To cross-examine like this can be quite a difficult technical achievement, because the absurdity must be obvious to the judge or jury, but not obvious to the witness. Somehow you have to blind him (or make him ignore) the absurdity of what he is saying. You can only do this by the interaction of his personality and yours; you have nothing else at your disposal. And if you insist on being a detached observer, you have nothing, and cannot do it.
I remember a full-grown police constable saying that although the defendant's car had knocked a substantial piece of metal off a KEEP LEFT sign with its mudguard, he would not have expected there to be the least damage to the paintwork of the car at the point of impact. He said it (I was convinced at the time) because he was handled in such a way as to make him want to say the thing most damaging to the defence. He wanted to say that he had seen the car collide with the KEEP LEFT sign, and knock some metal off it; and he did not want to admit that the complete absence of damage to the paintwork of the car strongly suggested he was wrong about something. In the event, sooner than do this, he was prepared to assert any absurdity. I am glad to say the magistrates promptly acquitted. So it looks as though the absurdity was obvious to the magistrates who were trying the case, but not to the witness who was wanting to give evidence damaging to the defendant, and who did not want to say something which would promptly acquit him.
The advocate is not only observer, he is also participant, and the interaction between his own personality and that of the witness is not an experimental error, but an instrument he must use to its full effect.