But it's not the concept that's my focus here, it's the practice.
It's great when corroboration is already concrete: a letter, an email or the minutes of a meeting, for example. But often, the desired corroboration is witness testimony.
On occasions beyond counting, members have assumed that because some behaviour or some words were witnessed by their colleagues, that corroborating testimony was going to be automatic; but it wasn't. The (big 3) short-list of reasons is:
- Claimed poor memory of the event,
- claimed inattention at the time, or (sometimes more honestly)
- a desire not to become involved.
For example, the pursuit of the evidence might require a telephone call followed by an email asking:
My recollection from the meeting this morning is that Joe Bloggs made a comment about my coordination of the project, saying:
"I have nothing against girls; but it's been a problem ever since they allowed them into leadership jobs like this one. "
Is that your recollection as well? If not, could you let me know what you remember?
Never ask a witness to characterise the words or events. All you need it the confirmation of the facts. A confirming email is usually evidence enough, but if testimony is required later the email becomes an aide-memoire.
It is a rare mind indeed that can render the
hitherto non-existent blindingly obvious.
The cry 'I could have thought of that'
is a very popular and misleading one,
for the fact is that they didn't,
and a very significant and revealing fact it is too.
—Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
