Dear Editor,
According to your report on the ongoing “Mahdia COI” in yesterday’s (Oct.5th) SN, Commissioner Kim Kyte-Thomas (KK-T) “asked the sub-officer if he would still state that the operation was effective despite the lack of adequate fire equipment as stated in his after-action report.” Apparently, KK-T was asking the GFS sub-officer to reflect on his contention that the GFS did the best it could, despite the lack of proper equipment and communication systems – something he had confirmed in his testimony. What-ever the specific questions and responses, what is important here is that the COI was apparently soliciting from the witness his opinion.
One might understand if KK-T expressed surprise at the sub-officer’s opinion. But it would be strange for her to have expressed the view that “his testimony contradicted his statement which was outlined in his report;” unless in his report he had specifically expressed the opinion that the GFS’ response and operation were ineffective, which apparently he did not. But apart from that, the Commissioner should surely know that opinion is not fact; and that being subjective, opinions can change.
The question I’m asking myself at this point is whether the COI is going beyond “fact finding” to consider subjective opinions. To be sure, opinions and especially expert opinions matter in this case.The COI must know, however, the use of subjective opinions depends a lot on the opinions that are stated, which in turn depends on how and when the opinion is elicited. All very tricky stuff, which of course explains why the sub-officer took about 4 minutes to reply. There is something else that the COI must know, if it decides to continue with subjective opinions: For any witness to give an honest opinion, there will have to be an abundance of that rather scarce commodity, “trust.” I look forward to further updates on the work of this COI.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Singh
