Corroborating evidence

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (October 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Corroborating evidence" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions. (February 2019)

(Learn how and when to remove this message)

Corroborating evidence, also referred to as corroboration, is a type of evidence in lawful command.

Types and uses

Corroborating evidence tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile, Y, another witness, corroborates the proposition by testifying that when he examined X's car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. There can also be corroborating evidence related to a certain source, such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects.

Another type of corroborating evidence comes from using the Baconian method, i.e., the method of agreement, method of difference, and method of concomitant variations.

These methods are followed in experimental design. They were codified by Francis Bacon, and developed further by John Stuart Mill and consist of controlling several variables, in turn, to establish which variables are causally connected. These principles are widely used intuitively in various kinds of proofs, demonstrations, and investigations, in addition to being fundamental to experimental design.

In law, corroboration refers to the requirement in some jurisdictions, such as in Scots law, that any evidence adduced be backed up by at least one other source (see Corroboration in Scots law).

An example of corroboration

Defendant says, "It was like what he/she (a witness) said but...". This is Corroborative evidence from the defendant that the evidence the witness gave is true and correct.

Corroboration is not needed in certain instances. For example, there are certain statutory exceptions. In the , it is only necessary to produce a register as proof of lack of attendance. No further evidence is needed.

England and Wales

Perjury

See section 13 of the Perjury Act 1911.

Speeding offences

See section 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Sexual offences

See section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Confessions by mentally handicapped persons

See section 77 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Evidence of children

See section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Evidence of accomplices

See section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Notes

For more information on this type of reasoning, see: Casuistry.

References

Plutchik, Robert (1983), Foundations of Experimental Research, Harper's Experimental Psychology Series.

This philosophy of science-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This article has multiple issues Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page Learn how and when to remove these messages The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject You may improve this article discuss the issue on the talk page or create a new article as appropriate October 2011 Learn how and when to remove this message This article needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources Corroborating evidence news newspapers books scholar JSTOR February 2009 Learn how and when to remove this message This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia s quality standards You can help The talk page may contain suggestions February 2019 Learn how and when to remove this message Corroborating evidence also referred to as corroboration is a type of evidence in lawful command Types and usesCorroborating evidence tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence therefore confirming the proposition For example W a witness testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car Meanwhile Y another witness corroborates the proposition by testifying that when he examined X s car later that day he noticed green paint on its fender There can also be corroborating evidence related to a certain source such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects Another type of corroborating evidence comes from using the Baconian method i e the method of agreement method of difference and method of concomitant variations These methods are followed in experimental design They were codified by Francis Bacon and developed further by John Stuart Mill and consist of controlling several variables in turn to establish which variables are causally connected These principles are widely used intuitively in various kinds of proofs demonstrations and investigations in addition to being fundamental to experimental design In law corroboration refers to the requirement in some jurisdictions such as in Scots law that any evidence adduced be backed up by at least one other source see Corroboration in Scots law An example of corroborationDefendant says It was like what he she a witness said but This is Corroborative evidence from the defendant that the evidence the witness gave is true and correct Corroboration is not needed in certain instances For example there are certain statutory exceptions In the it is only necessary to produce a register as proof of lack of attendance No further evidence is needed England and WalesPerjury See section 13 of the Perjury Act 1911 Speeding offences See section 89 2 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Sexual offences See section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Confessions by mentally handicapped persons See section 77 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Evidence of children See section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 Evidence of accomplices See section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 See alsoKarl PopperNotesFor more information on this type of reasoning see Casuistry ReferencesPlutchik Robert 1983 Foundations of Experimental Research Harper s Experimental Psychology Series This philosophy of science related article is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte