A case is put before me. I'm presented only two witnesses. They tell opposing stories, which are mutually exclusive; only one can be right, the other has to be wrong. I have to decide. Each story is compelling and credible.
Witness 1 has nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling their version of the story. Witness 2 has everything to gain from their version of the story, don't know if there is any more to lose; it's already bad.
There is more to the story. We know it's out there, but I'm not allowed to know or consider it. Witness 1 requests further information be allowed. Witness 2 is evasive about allowing it.
The testimony of Witness 1 is heartfelt and gut-wrenching. The testimony of Witness 2 is impassioned and expresses outrage, but some of that outrage is expressed while referring to notes, reading rehearsed talking points.
That's it. That's all I have to go on. Now I have to choose to believe one and not the other.
Witness 2 is not getting my vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment