4.4 Credibility 151
guideline, but it is no more than that. Cast
your mind back to the eyewitness,
Mr Choudhury, in the previous chapter
(page 147). He was a retired headteacher, and
as such would have been expected to be
fair-minded and honest – especially towards
students. Yet his testimony was less than
wholly reliable. Maybe he was mistaken about
what he saw; maybe he was a supporter of the
visiting politician and took a dislike to Amelia
for showing pleasure at his ill-treatment.
Maybe none of these was the case, and he was
telling the unvarnished truth. The point is
that, although reputation is not irrelevant, on
its own it does not guarantee credibility. It is
one factor among many.
Choudhury’s evidence is interesting for
another reason. He identified Amelia. He
recognised her in a line-up as the person he had
seen throwing eggs. Here is his statement again:
‘She’s the one. She was up ahead of me in
the crowd, right where the stuff all came from.
She jumped up and down, and did a high five
with the kid next to her. They were loving it.
Then she ducked down and picked something
up. The crowd rushed forward then and I lost
sight of her, but later I saw her get arrested,
and saw her face close up. It was her all right.
Later I heard the police were asking for
witnesses, so I came forward.’In legal terms Choudhury’s identification of
Amelia Jackson would be ‘inadmissible
evidence’. Why is this?
To put this another way: Why is Choudhury
not a credible witness?Activity
Commentary
This question was partly answered in the
previous chapter. Choudhury did not claim to
have seen Amelia actually throw anything. He
just said (twice): ‘She’s the one.’ The most that
could be pinned on her was showingobjective or independent criteria for judging a
source’s credibility.
What are the options? A good place to start is
reputation. Generally speaking, a witness or
claimant with a reputation for honesty, good
education, status in the community, and so on,
is a safer bet than someone with no such
reputation – or, worse still, a negative reputation.
A criminal with a record for fraud is less likely to
be believed than a law-abiding citizen with a
responsible job; and with good reason. It is
reasonable to believe that the probability of
obtaining the truth from a reputable source is
greater than it is from a disreputable one.
But, as stated, this is a generalisation. Under
certain circumstances it may be more
rewarding to consult a convicted criminal than
an ordinary citizen. If, for example, the subject
of inquiry is criminality, a person who has
committed crimes and knows the criminal
world is likely to be better informed than
someone who has no such experience. The risk
that the fraudster may lie is balanced by his or
her access to direct evidence. There is therefore
a second criterion that we can apply, namely
experience, or expertise. Ideally, of course, we
would hope to find sources that are reputable
and informed. So, for instance, a qualified
researcher who has made it her business to
investigate crime and criminal activity, study
statistics, talk to criminals and law-
enforcement officers, and analyse and verify
her findings is arguably the best source of all.
Another point to be borne in mind about
reputation is that it may not be deserved. You
don’t have to read very many newspaper
articles before you come across a story of
someone who has held a highly respected
position but betrayed the trust that comes
with it. No one’s occupation or rank is a
guarantee of credibility. Every so often a
doctor, police officer, teacher or priest will be
discovered to have acted dishonestly or
stupidly. Conversely, there are countless
people with no special status in society who
are honest and clever. Reputation is a