This would explain why the first group gave more accurate testimonies the first time around. But why would that lead to relatively more inaccuracies when they gave their testimonies a second time? This doesn't reconcile the apparent conflict.

This explains why the first group gave more accurate testimonies the first time around. But it still doesn't help us to explain why their testimonies were relatively inaccurate the second time.

This means that while these witnesses were less susceptible to inaccuracy in the first round, they also weren’t as easily led towards accurate details the second time. This would explain the apparent conflict.

This could be true, but it doesn’t reconcile the fact that these witnesses were more accurate than others the first time around and less accurate the second. If anything, it makes it more confusing why this group was relatively less accurate the second time.

It doesn’t matter how detailed their testimonies were. We need to know why those details were relatively more accurate in the first examination and relatively less accurate in the second examination.