How can you demonstrate that a sophisticated person is combining the techniques of:
(i) lack of awareness, e.g. to persuade the listener that they had no knowledge of a state of affairs, or were an innocent victim of unforeseen circumstances outside their knowledge and control;
(ii) unconscious bias, by triggering an emotional response to switch off the listeners’ critical thinking faculties, e.g. by pressing a ‘red-button’ designed to make the listener relate what is being said to their own subjective experience, i.e. to lend credibility to the narrative by proxy, because what the witness says fits with the listener’s worldview and personal beliefs;
(iii) innuendo; and
to plant a false impression in the mind of the listener about the witness’ actual knowledge, understanding, beliefs, intentions, and behaviour?
In other words, how can you prove that it is more probable than not, that this person is both: (a) acting (i.e. by putting on a face and manner/demeanor); and (b) manipulating facts, in order to present falsehoods as truth?
The answer is to test rigor, in order to challenge the credibility of the facts and the witness.
In preparing for cross-examination can advocates learn from academic research methodologies?
An insightful and instructive article about qualitative research methodologies is,
‘Rigor or Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, Strategies, Reconceptualization, and Recommendations’ by Brigite S Cypress: Rigor or Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research: P… : Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing (lww.com)
See also ‘What is the RED Model of Critical Thinking?’: LinkClick.aspx (af.edu)