I have been approached with the following question, which raises such a range of issues, and is so tough to answer, that I thought it best to open it up to you. The person has given permission for me to do this on condition of anonymity. Here’s the question – what would be your response?
Suppose someone, in a vulnerable position, having little resources, knows something very very serious that happened some time ago. He has no evidence at all other than that he was there.
It’s a political scandal of some size. Headline news if true.
The person has to get to the truth of what he thinks he knows. He has very few resources, or friends prepared to believe this, no job contacts he can use, but he does have the internet.
There is considerable danger to him in this being public without evidence.
Given what the internet is good for, and its weaknesses (how easy it is to be discovered, as well as to discover things), how best does he go about finding the truth? Or is this a time to speak to a journalist in person? He can’t afford a private investigator.
Answers via comment or private email please.