The prosecuting attorney still has no hard evidence against the defendant, but this time he has an expert witness (fact teller/community leader, see Potter, 1996), Dr. Smith, who shares the lawyer's opinion that the defendant actually committed the crime. In this case the accusations of the lawyers (bearer of experience, see Potter, 1996) immediately became more credible. This is due to the connotations associated with the title of Doctor and the 40 years of experience it has, i.e. having an elite level of expertise and having seen many cases before. Another factor that increases credibility is the fact that the expert was kept out of the courtroom "so that he would remain uncontaminated by the stories of others" (Edwards and Potter, 1992, p. 119). They therefore act as a blank slate providing information that has not been previously influenced