So, if you have contradictory accounts, you have to consider a number of other factors:
1) Motivation. What is the motivation of the witnesses?
I've already stated that I believe that Schachte's motivation is clear: a disgust with Kerry's antiwar comments.
2) Credibility. The issue of why was Schachte firing goes towards his credibility. As senior man supposedly on the boat, was it his common practice to shoot at people who weren't shooting back? On the other hand, the other two in the boat were clearly not convinced that there WAS shooting; that, in my mind, shows that they are not simply Kerry shills.
3) Number of witnesses. Kerry, Zaledonis, and Runyon all say it was only them in the boat. 3-1 has some weight, even if the witnesses only have equal credibility (as I've said, I think Zaledonis and Runyon have more credibility than Schachte).
Btw: the above 'number of witnesses' argument is one of O'Neill's favorite, and demonstrates his dishonesty. He claims that Kerry has a 'picnic table' of witnesses, while the anti-Kerry witnesses are a 'campground'. Well, that's simply distorting the truth: the number of eyewitnesses for the medal events in question are roughly the same, if not slightly favoring to Kerry after the recent 'coming outs'. |
