bears on: How did police identify Joshua Kerry as the perpetrator?
Joshua Kerry opened the passenger side of a car.
No event time was recorded for this claim — the text gave nothing to anchor it to, and a guessed date would be worse than none.
Standing
lens: Evidence-weighted Structural
9.5% belief under Evidence-weighted · -2.25 log-odds · derived, never stored
| Direction | What it rests on | Base | Leg | CQ factor | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| support | The Sun scheme expert-testimony (CQ open ⇒ ×0.5), independent leg #1 ⇒ ÷1 | 2 | #1 | ×0.5 | +1.00 |
| challenge | Does the source have an interest in this conclusion? scheme expert-testimony (CQ open ⇒ ×0.5), independent leg #1 ⇒ ÷1 | 0.5 | #1 | ×0.5 | -0.25 |
Deliberately not counted
Connections the engine saw and refused to count, with its reason. This half of the audit is the more important one: it is where the rules bite.
- ignored The Sun obtained CCTV showing Joshua Kerry opening the passenger side of a car — critical question answered unfavourably — the inference is withdrawn (Pollock)
0 evidentiary legs 0 sources 3 challenges contested
Questions this bears on
Bears on as evidence:
How did police identify Joshua Kerry as the perpetrator?
3 branches · 1 source
What bears on it
- challenges Does the source have an interest in this conclusion?
- challenges Is the claim independently corroborated?
- challenges Is the source genuinely in a position to know?
- supports The Sun
- supports The Sun obtained CCTV showing Joshua Kerry opening the passenger side of a car
- supports Footage of Joshua Kerry was released last week
- supports Joshua Kerry opened the passenger side of a car.
- challenges Police have not shown CCTV of the car on the drive or of Joshua Kerry breaking into Anne Widdecombe's property
- challenges The CCTV footage does not show Joshua Kerry leaving the address
- challenges The family says the suspect does not look like the CCTV footage
Shown to three levels; follow any claim to see its own structure.
Voices
No asserter is recorded for this claim.
How it was derived
Nobody asserted this. The model applied the expert-testimony scheme (v1) to premises already in the record, at derivation depth 1.
Premises:
Critical questions — the standard challenges to this kind of inference:
- Does the source have an interest in this conclusion? open
- Is the source genuinely in a position to know? open
- Is the claim independently corroborated? open
Sources
No source is recorded on this claim directly.
Who and what it involves
Origin: produced by scheme:expert-testimony@v1