Which statement about witness credibility is accurate?

• A. A witness who has an uncorrected sensory impairment is more credible than one who does not have an impairment.
• B. A witness who has told the same story consistently is more credible than a witness who has told two or more stories concerning the same events.
• C. A story for which there is no independent corroboration is more credible than a story where there is independent corroboration.
• D. A story consistent with physical evidence is less credible than one which is inconsistent.

Answer: (B)

Consistency in a witness’s account is an important signal of reliability. When a witness repeats the same narrative across interviews, it suggests stable memory and reduces concern that details were invented or changed to fit others’ lines of questioning. In contrast, offering two or more versions of the same events points to unreliability and casts doubt on what actually happened. Remember that credibility is influenced by many factors, including corroboration and how testimony aligns with physical evidence, but the comparison shown here directly highlights how a consistent story is generally more credible than multiple conflicting versions. Therefore, this statement best captures the impact of consistency on credibility.