What is the state of the law on credibility in testimony?

Indeed, even with the relevant documents, we would leave the issue of credibility to the trial court. "A written transcript of testimony is but a pallid reflection of what actually happens in a trial court. `"The best and most accurate record is like a dehydrated peach; it has neither the substance nor the flavor of the fruit before it was dried." It resembles a pressed flower.' [Citation.] `The cold record cannot give the look or manner of the witnesses; their hesitations, their doubts, their variations of language, their precipitancy, their calmness or consideration. A witness may convince all who hear him testify that he is disingenuous and untruthful, and yet his testimony when read, may convey a most favorable impression.' [Citation.] `There are many factors aiding in a reasonable conclusion which are presented to the trier of facts in the first instance and not available to one going over the cold record. There is what might be called the "feel" of the case. This embraces a consideration of the witnesses, the manner in which they testify and their general attitude in the court room.' [Citation.] `"[O]ne witness may give testimony that reads in print, here, as if falling from the lips of an angel of light, and yet not a soul who heard it, nisi, believed a word of it; and another witness may testify so that it reads brokenly and obscurely in print, and yet there was that about the witness that carried conviction of truth to every soul who heard him testify. . . ." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Meiner v. Ford Motor Co. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 127, 140.)