question on civil law

[notnutnut]

Question on law that may provide the most expedient method to extract the truth from a witness when on oath?
In a case in Chancery Court case (listed) rather than provide transcripts etc. from previous cases in which several fake witnesses gave false evidence to my detriment.(they did the same in two local magistrates court cases both of which were dropped much to their embarrassment,after it was so obvious they were lying) ,this would lead me to believe that their status would now be that of a 'discredited witness' (I think?) I already have all the statements of theirs from the two above mentioned criminal cases plus a previous civil case all signed as 'truth'.It then occurred to me that rather than waste time and money on court transcripts it seemed to me that by asking each 'witness' before they gave evidence in the forthcoming trial if they were aware of the penalties of perjury or perverting the course of justice that they could either tell the truth or lie and put themselves 'in the line of fire' for the obvious offences since they would know that they had previously signed a 'statement of truth' that blatantly contradicts the evidence they intend to give in the forthcoming trail.I'm not legally trained at all but have had a bit of a 'crash course lately ! If anyone could help me with this it would be most appreciated,thanks ! I'm also intending a private prosecution of the police soon,I have detailed digitally recorded evidence to support this in some quantity including a quote from two local police inspectors that 'criminal damage is now a civil matter' although they hung up when I asked ' when the statute was changed on this'.Any 'legal eagles' who may may be up for this and competent please leave details,thanks again !
2 weeks ago
Additional Details
Sorry, I should have said in UK law !

[FredPuli43]

The short answer is that you may cross-examine any witness who says something on oath by putting their contradictory, earlier statement and the circumstances of its making , to them. If they stick by the new version, that's the evidence in the case, but their testimony may be less credible because of their having given a contradictory or differing version previously.

A transcript, if available, serves only to give the cross-examiner a correct, verbatim, account of the words used , which is obviously better to put than a simple assertion of the gist of it. Signed statements, affidavits, any document in the cross-examiner's hands and which emanates from the witness, all may be put as contradicting what the witness now says but do not themselves become evidence of facts in the instant case unless he agrees with them, and adopts the statements as correct statements now. You cannot ,of course, ordinarily use 'without prejudice' and privileged documents for this purpose.

[bednobs]

i doubt anyone will be able to help you as your post is confusing, convoluted and doesn't make any sense (to me at least) and has an astounding lack of any useful details

[bednobs]

lol well i stand corrected!
Listen to fred, he can obv understand AND knows the answer

[Barmaid]

Fred has give a great answer. Can I also make the point though, that this requires forensic cross examination. To do this you really need an experienced advocate (I've seen inexperienced advocates really cocking this sort of stuff up). Please see about getting legal advice - if necessary go to counsel on a direct access basis. Cross examining in these circumstances is never easy.