first round with the attorney trying to get inaccurate testimonies: witnesses who gave more accurate answers than the rest weren't influenced by the attorney deliberately trying to get the witnesses to give inaccurate statements. hence, they were more accurate than the (influenced) witnesses who gave inaccurate testimonies. in other words, the attorney trying to get inaccurate answers was probably asking biased/leading questions to get a certain answer. witnesses who weren't influenced didn't fall for this trap.

second round with the cross-examining attorney trying to get accurate testimonies: like the first attorney, this attorney was probably asking biased/leading questions to get a certain answer. this time, the right answer. ultimately, this would have likely led to the influenced witnesses from the first round giving accurate testimonies with the help of the attorney. however, the other witnesses (who weren't influenced) likely gave the same testimony they gave to the first attorney, meaning they were more inaccurate with their statements in comparison to the statements given by the influenced witnesses who probably gave precise details with the help of the second attorney's biased questions.

lol idk if this is the right way to go about it but this was genuinely so difficult for me to wrap my head around at first, so im posting this for other students who may be facing a similar situation!

same