To be effective critical thinkers, we should not simply accept information as it is presented. We need to try to determine the accuracy of the information and evaluate the credibility of the people providing the information.

So, first:

1. Post comments that evaluate the testimony of each witness by stating what evidence is provided, how true the evidence presented is (in your opinion) and how credible the witness is (in your opinion). You may note any additional concerns or questions or key pieces of evidence that you think we should be aware of. Or perhaps state how this testimony might be useful (or not). As noted previously, you might think of your initial post as recording your first impression of the witness, but remain open minded; as new facts emerge, we incorporate them into our knowledge base, and re-evaluate what we know, perhaps revising or strengthening our "working theory" of the case.

2. List any follow-up questions you would ask this witness on cross-examination.