Two drivers – Ed Farr and Ray Crowe – collided and spun off the track in heavy rain in the last race of the season earlier today. Neither driver was injured, but the incident put both cars out of the race, leaving Crowe as World Champion for the second year running. Before the race there was just one point between the two drivers. If Farr had finished the race ahead of Crowe, he would have moved into first place and taken the title.
After the race an inquiry was called for into allegations that Ray Crowe had intentionally collided with his opponent’s car. The following items of evidence were noted:
[1] Farr’s team manager reacted furiously by claiming that Crowe had deliberately swerved and forced their driver off the track as he tried to overtake on a notorious S-bend* known as the Slide.
‘It was no surprise, either,’ she added.
‘With Ed out of the race, Crowe knew he had won the championship. Of course he meant to do it.’
[2] A television camera team filmed Crowe walking away from his wrecked car. He appears to be smiling as he removes his helmet. He says to reporters: ‘I hope you’re not all going to blame this on me. I just held my line**, and that is completely within the rules.’ Later he added: ‘It was all Ed’s fault. He could have killed us both. It was a crazy place to try to overtake. He has only himself to blame.’
office, taken the money and walked out again with the secretary sitting at her desk, then simply denied it in the hope that he would be believed and not her?
If the secretary is right it also means that the manager wrongly thought the deputy’s office was empty when she passed it on two occasions; and that the driver’s statement is questionable. In other words, we would have to disbelieve three people’s statements in order to believe the secretary’s statement. For them all to be wrong would be quite a coincidence.
For them all to be lying would require some mysterious explanation.
So although the secretary’s story seems credible enough in itself, when we subject it to this kind of critical examination, it turns out to have some unlikely consequences. A consequence is something that follows from something else. If we find that a certain claim, or version of events, would have puzzling consequences, that must throw some doubt on the claim.
What if we accept the deputy manager’s account? First of all it is consistent with what two other witnesses are saying, and that has to be in Depp’s favour, even if their statements are a bit vague and uncertain. But, of course, it means that Rita is lying. It also means that Rita was alone in the Management Suite for about 20 minutes when the money went missing.
She therefore would have had a much better opportunity than Depp to steal and hide the money with no one around to see her. If she did steal the money, she also had a motive for trying to pin the blame on someone else.
If you compare the two suppositions, Depp’s story has much more believable consequences than Rita’s. This does not put it beyond reasonable doubt that the secretary is a thief and a liar, but it does make her story harder to swallow.
Suppose the deputy manager planned the theft with the driver. He waited for the manager to leave her office, walked in there as the secretary reported, took the money, and later slipped out to give it to the driver and tell
* S-bend: a double bend in a road or track, shaped like the letter S.
** Holding your line: staying on your chosen course, not swerving or cutting across another driver. The rules of the sport permit a driver to choose his line through a bend, but not intentionally to cause a collision.
Crowe
Spectators’ area
28.07
.36Race official Farr
28.07
.4728.08
.12Akram [3] Ed Farr stated: ‘There was plenty of room
to get past if Crowe had held his line**. He waited till I came level, then drove into me.’
[4] Today’s race winner Waleed Akram, who was just behind the two cars at the time, commented: ‘That’s motor racing. Ray had earned his one point lead, and he was just defending it. If it had been the other way round, Ed would probably have done the same. Everyone was expecting something like this to happen.’ Asked if he had seen Crowe swerve, he said: ‘Maybe not a
“swerve” exactly, but he could have avoided the crash. Anyway, it stands to reason that he would take Ed out of the race if he got the chance. It’s not the first time he’s done something like that.’
[5] Computer-generated images (see right) were made from trackside cameras, recording the positions of the cars just before, and just as, they made contact.
[6] A race official, stationed on the bend, reported: ‘There was a lot of spray as the cars rounded the bend. Farr tried to cut through on the inside. He was almost past when the two cars touched. They both spun and ended up on the verge opposite. It is hard to tell, but to me it just looked like an accident.’
[7] Journalist Gudrun Brecht added to the controversy by reporting that she had been at a party two days before the race and that she had heard Crowe openly boasting that he would ‘do anything necessary to win the championship’. She wrote: ‘I know Crowe well, and he makes no secret of his determination to win, whatever it takes.’
[8] On record: Crowe was involved in two similar controversies in previous seasons, but on both occasions he was cleared of any blame.
2 How reliable is Akram as a witness?
Consider what he has to say in the light of other information and evidence available.
What impact should his statement have on the outcome of the inquiry?
Activity
Commentary
Akram claims to be an eyewitness. However, given what the race official says, and taking into account his (Akram’s) position on the track when the collision occurred, it is doubtful whether he could have seen very much. Like Farr’s manager, Akram bases his assessment of what happened partly on Crowe’s motives, but also on his past record.
He says ‘it stands to reason’ that Crowe did it on purpose.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t really stand to reason at all. Akram is unable to say that Crowe actively ‘swerved’, yet he is prepared to say he allowed the crash to happen. As a professional racing driver, we can give Akram credit for having the expertise to make such a claim: he would know better than most people if an accident could have been avoided or not.
But that is not to say that Crowe let it happen intentionally. It could just have been
carelessness that caused it, or poor visibility.
Akram is not really in a position to make such a judgement objectively.
3 How seriously can you take the evidence provided by Gudrun Brecht?
Activity
Commentary
This evidence cannot be taken very seriously at all. It is a classic case of hearsay evidence:
she ‘heard him’ boasting that he would do anything necessary to win. We don’t have any means of knowing if these were his exact Answer each of the following questions and
compare your answer with the commentary that follows. The questions are similar to those set in Cambridge Thinking Skills Paper 2.
1 What is the team manager’s argument for blaming Crowe for the incident? How strong is her statement as evidence against Crowe?
Activity
Commentary
The manager’s argument is based on what she sees as Crowe’s motive. She is pointing out a fact when she says that with Ed out of the race Crowe would win the championship. But she infers too much from it. Besides, she is
probably biased and sounds angry. As Ed Farr’s manager she has a vested interest in the outcome of the race. We say someone has a vested interest in an outcome if they are likely to benefit, financially or otherwise, if the decision goes one way rather than the other.
Crowe, Farr and the manager all have an obvious vested interest in the outcome of this case. The other witnesses may or may not, but there is no reason to think they have.
We don’t know if the manager actually witnessed the incident first-hand, but even if she did, it would be very hard to say that one of the drivers had acted intentionally. She uses the tell-tale phrase ‘of course’ to show that she is assuming there was intention on Crowe’s part because it would be to his advantage.
On its own this is not strong evidence. The fact that someone stands to gain from some act or other does not mean he or she will commit that act. However, taken together with other evidence, motive does add some weight to the argument. Let’s put it this way: if he didn’t have a motive, there would be much less reason to think Crowe caused the crash deliberately.
drawn, but it would be wrong to interpret Crowe’s apparent smile as a sign of guilt.
As for his own defence, which takes the form of a pre-emptive attack on Farr, there may be some justification for what he says. We do not have a great deal to go on other than the three computer-generated images of the incident. These are the focus of the next question.
5 What evidence can be found in the images to support either of the two sides involved in the dispute?
Activity
Commentary
Unlike almost all the evidence supplied by witnesses, the images are hard evidence.
The saying ‘the camera never lies’ is often challenged because nowadays almost anyone can fake or ‘doctor’ a photograph. But it is still true that the camera itself doesn’t lie: it is what is done with the photographs afterwards that can create deception. Anyway, we will assume these images are an accurate reconstruction.
One way to approach this question is to draw on the picture the line you think Crowe would have chosen through the S-bend.
Obviously racing drivers like to steer through bends by the fastest route, but if other cars are in their way they have to go wide to get round them. Remembering what the rules are, do you think Crowe keeps strictly to a natural line, or does he steer over into Farr’s path as he comes level and so cause the collision?
Read again what the two drivers had to say and what the race official saw, and, on the strength of the pictures, decide whose story is more believable. There is no right or wrong answer to this: you have to draw your own conclusions – and support them with the evidence as you find it.
words, or if they were a journalist’s colourful way of presenting them. Besides, even if they were his exact words, they don’t really tell us how far Crowe was prepared to go. Maybe he meant he would try as hard as he could, but would draw the line at risking his life and the lives of others just to get the title.
Also, Gudrun claims, ‘I know Crowe well.’
She doesn’t say whether she likes or dislikes him, but from the statement she makes it is more likely that it is dislike. If she were fond of him, she would hardly imply so strongly that he was prepared to cheat. This makes her a less reliable witness, since her neutrality is in question. As sports-page gossip, what she says is of some interest, but it ought not to count for much as evidence of guilt in an official inquiry.
4 Can you draw any conclusions from Ray Crowe’s behaviour and his comments as the camera team filmed him walking away from the crash site?
Activity
Commentary
Crowe’s actual denial counts for very little, for obvious reasons. If he had collided with Farr in order to win the championship, he would be just as likely to deny that it was intentional. It could also be said that he was very quick to deny it, doing so even before he had been asked about it. On the other hand he may have expected a hostile reaction from the media, whether he was guilty or not, especially given his apparent reputation.
The smile he appears to have as he takes off his helmet may be a smile of satisfaction, or of relief. It may even be a sarcastic smile, at seeing the cameras and the television crew appear so quickly. Smiles and other facial expressions are often seized on by the media, and conclusions
questions. She could not say what the notes were about specifically.
C An intercepted text message from a postgraduate st udent to Corinne’s phone, saying: ‘Cant believe u r bribing me. Wot kinda friend r u!!!
Write your own essay.’
Rank these three items according to the weight you would give them, stating reasons for your assessments.
3 Comment critically on the following further item of evidence given to the principal investigating the allegations against Corinne Blake. It is from a report by an educational psychologist who interviewed Corinne:
‘Miss Blake seemed agitated and anxious. Her mannerisms and body language were consistent with the behaviour of someone who has something to hide. When asked to repeat the answers she had given to some of the questions in the exam she gave a number of incoherent responses which suggested to me that she had less knowledge of the subject matter than her written answers might have indicated. I do not believe she could have given those answers without external help of some sort.’
1 On the basis of the evidence, can it be concluded that Ray Crowe intentionally collided with Farr? Give a short, reasoned argument to support your answer.
2 The principal of a college is investigating allegations that one of the students, Corinne Blake, has cheated on multiple occasions by: copying essays found on the internet; asking friends to write assignments for her; and taking revision notes into an exam.
Corinne denies all the allegations and says that the other students are accusing her out of spite.
The evidence in front of the principal consists of three items, all messages:
A An anonymous email sent to the principal. It reads: ‘I heard Corinne Blake tell a friend she had
downloaded stuff off the internet and got an A for it. They were both having a good laugh about it. I thought you should know.’
B A statement by a student saying that she had been sitting behind Corinne in an exam and watched her unfold a page of notes and read it under the desk before answering one of the