This paper concentrates on the primary theme of Critical Thinking (Prosecution Witnesses) in which you have to explain and evaluate its intricate aspects in detail. In addition to this, this paper has been reviewed and purchased by most of the students hence; it has been rated 4.8 points on the scale of 5 points. Besides, the price of this paper starts from £ 40. For more details and full access to the paper, please refer to the site.
Critical Thinking (Prosecution Witnesses)
- Helen Brook claims that Thomas Randall is a noisy person who likes throwing, noisy, and drinking party to other under 18 kids. She confirms that Randall held the party on Thursday, and that she Ms. Green leaving the party at mid night acting drunk. The information provided is relevant to the guilt of the defendant, as it confirms he indeed threw the party to under age and offered them alcohol. The information is accurate because Green is said to have left the party at midnight, which is the approximate time she caused the accident and she acted drunk, the information that rhyme with that of the prosecution.
- The credibility of the witness of Helen Brook can be put on question, given that she is downstairs neighbor of the defendant and she was not happy about the behavior of Randall of making noise. The testimony id unfair and biased, with some factors raising doubts such as whether she can give accurate information concerning the kid she does not like. She was also troubled by the party’s noisy and thus she can be having a personal vendetta with the defendant. The fact that she was not living harmoniously with Randal raises doubts about the accuracy of her testimony.
The testimony of Mr. Doyle confirms that the party took place, Ms. Green got drunk in the party, and……………………..