[OkayPhysicist]

It's a hell of a lot easier to not have to defend a statement made out of context than it is to do so. It's the same reason you should never, ever, under any circumstances answer any questions about anything at all coming from the police without your lawyer. Even if you are completely innocent, your words can be presented in such a manner as to call into question your honesty, at which point your rebuttal will be shrouded by distrust.

The quintessential example is an alibi. If the cops accuse me of shooting someone in SF, but I was in Berkeley at the time, I might be tempted to tell them that. But then, when they produce a faulty eye-witness, who says they saw me in SF that evening, suddenly I need to discredit that witness in order to resolve my alibi. Meanwhile, if I hadn't said anything, the witness's claim that I happened to be in the same city on the same day as the murder is nowhere near enough evidence to cause me any problems.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> If the cops accuse me of shooting someone in SF, but I was in Berkeley at the time, I might be tempted to tell them that. But then, when they produce a faulty eye-witness, who says they saw me in SF that evening, suddenly I need to discredit that witness in order to resolve my alibi.

you have an equal need to disprove the claims of a witness regardless of whether you have an alibi

additionally, regardless of whether there's a witness, all you need to do is prove you were in Berkeley to remove yourself as a suspect

so the two things (alibi, witness) seem orthogonal

[Mawr]

You don't, because the witness testimony is irrelevant on its own. Without knowing the alibi, there's no reason to think the OP being in SF is an issue at all.

See https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=1255