REACCIONES FISIOLÓGICAS

One of the main reasons for doubting a source’s neutrality is the discovery of a vested interest. Vested interests may take many forms, the most familiar being financial interest. Take, for example, the following scenario: an oil company wants to sink an exploratory well in a region where there is some alleged risk of environmental damage, and possible harm to wildlife. Environmentalists have voiced strong opposition; the oil company has hired a team of ‘independent’ experts to assess the risks and report on their findings. After some time the team produce a statement that there is practically no risk of contamination or other damage, and the oil company gets the go- ahead. Then just before the drilling is due to start two of the experts on the team are found to have substantial shares in the oil industry. Had the report been negative, they would have lost a lot of money; as it stands, they will make a lot of money instead.

Obviously the report is discredited, not because it is necessarily false, but because of the vested interest of two of its authors. This is an extreme example, and a stereotypical one. But it is illustrative. The general question that we have to ask is therefore this: Does the author of the claim have any reason to make the claim, other than believing it to be the truth? If the answer is yes, truth may not be the author’s highest priority.

excitement, and bending down to pick

something up. What she picked up the witness does not say, raising the question of how he could be sure she picked anything up.

But there is another weakness in Choudhury’s supposedly ‘eyewitness’

account. Whoever he saw in the crowd, it was from behind; and he lost sight of her in the crowd. He saw Amelia’s face close up only when she was arrested. That was the face he picked out of the line-up, but whether or not the two women were the same we can’t be sure. If Choudhury had not seen the arrest, would he have identified Amelia in the line-up? Again, we can’t be sure. The credibility of Choudhury as a witness ultimately comes down to his ability to see what, and who, he claims to have seen.

A person’s ability to apprehend information is thus another important factor in assessing certain kinds of evidence. Imagine a witness who claims to have overheard every detail of a private conversation at another table in a busy restaurant. The credibility of the claim could be tested by asking her to sit at the same table and repeat what she hears in similar, or more favourable, circumstances. If she cannot hear the words spoken in the test, she can hardly claim to have heard every detail of the alleged conversation. Her credibility as a witness would come down to her ability to hear what she says she heard, just as Rajinder

Choudhury’s comes down to his ability to see.

Neutrality

As noted at the end of the last chapter, there is a possibility that Choudhury may have formed a dislike for Amelia. He seems quite eager to point the finger at her, even though he has little hard evidence; and there is something in the tone of his testimony which hints at disapproval. If this were the case, it would further undermine confidence in the evidence. As well as being able and informed, a reliable source should, as far as possible, be neutral. Even the possibility of bias or prejudice is enough to lessen a source’s

known that they had conferred, that would actually detract from their credibility, for it would have to be explained why they had conferred. If they were both simply telling the truth, there would be no need to confer.

Corroboration is at its most potent when there is agreement between different kinds of evidence: for example, when statistical evidence bears out what several independent witnesses have said, and the circumstantial evidence all points in the same direction. By the same token, credibility is at its lowest when there is a lack of corroboration, or disagreement.

• In the absence of knowledge or certainty about the truth of some portion of evidence, we often have to rely on its credibility.

• There are a number of criteria by which we can judge credibility:

• the plausibility of the claim or claims themselves

• the reputation, expertise, independence and/or neutrality of the source

• the ability to have seen or perceived what is being claimed

• the absence of vested interest (or motive for saying one thing rather than another)

• corroboration by other evidence or from other sources.

Summary

Corroboration

Each of the criteria that we have discussed affects how we judge a claim. Yet none of them, on its own, is sufficient to put a claim beyond reasonable doubt. A claim is, by its nature, uncertain, whoever has made it and however plausible it may be. Corroboration has been discussed at various points already, so that it doesn’t need any further

explanation. Of all the criteria for assessing credibility, it is perhaps the most potent. This is hardly surprising, since it is not really a single reason to believe a claim, but a combination of reasons supporting and endorsing each other.

The simplest form of corroboration is agreement – though it must be agreement between independent sources. If two or more people make the same claim, or express the same opinion, there is more reason to believe it than if one person alone has made the claim. It is crucial to add the word

‘independent’ here, because if it is found that one person has influenced the others, the added credibility is cancelled, for they are effectively making a single, repeated claim rather than several separate claims which genuinely corroborate each other. You may recall that in the previous chapter, the police interviewed Amelia Jackson’s flatmates separately. The fact that they still gave the same answers added to the credibility of what they said, but there was still the possibility that they had conferred in advance, and anticipated the questions. Indeed, if it is

and, most importantly, why you reached those decisions.)

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

This assignment can be completed individually in writing, or as a group discussion. (If you choose the second of these, you should also make notes on what you discussed, what decisions you came to

PARTYTIME STAR ACCUSED