Specificity is crucial when it comes to court or arbitrary proceedings; if concrete evidence doesn’t exist, it’s best to not assume the implication is there in the mind of the Trier of fact. To answer in absolutes with a simple yes or no is the best practice. Replies like “maybe”, or “sometimes” will only open up further questioning and possibly result in ambiguity in your testimony and directly affect the decider’s estimation. Proceedings should focus on fact rather than semantics; however, in a game of wordplay these semantics are held in high regard. With criminal proceedings the weight of evidence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in a civil litigation or workplace arbitration, evidence is measured on a balance of probabilities.
Absolutes equate to confidence in any proceeding and are seen as such by those making the decisions. Getting all the evidence in order and paying great attention to detail prior to any proceeding is crucial and in the end can save a great deal of cost to any organization.
Recently we conducted surveillance on an individual on LTD who was claiming he was basically incapacitated in his daily routine. Through social media investigations we concluded that this individual would be travelling out of country on vacation during the period of his claim. We were able to obtain the flight information including the gate he would be departing. Our investigator began surveillance on the home and followed the subject to the airport directly up to the gate. The so-called incapacitated subject was moving about with ease, as well as carrying his luggage and a back pack. Could it be filled with feathers? That may be an argument the defense may execute during proceedings. Knowing this, our investigator secured a place in line directly behind the subject and was able to capture and record the weight of both the luggage and the backpack on video. The evidence captured in this surveillance would prove that if in fact the suitcase was filled with feathers there was 24 kg worth.