For example, when two people are asked for their recollection of an event, the recollections are sometimes significantly at variance. It cannot necessarily be concluded from this that one person is not `telling the truth'. Rather, we have to recognise that both may be telling their truth', which they are convinced is accurate, and are doing so in all sincerity. Edmund Husserl (1999: page 22), the main figure in the field of phenomenology, states: "Whatever I perceive, imagine, judge or infer may be certain or uncertain but it is absolutely clear and certain that I am perceiving it-. In other words, you can state with certainty what you perceive. It may or may not be a correct perception but it is your perception and so cannot be challenged (e.g. I can state that a certain girl is attractive. It is possible to doubt the fact that the girl is attractive but it is not possible to doubt that I find her attractive).
This notion of truth and differing but certain beliefs leads to the question of what account gives a reliable and unbiased view of the event. Any answer to this question will be highly subjective and is likely to differ depending on the person evaluating the evidence. Since public inquiries are often conducted by just one person this interpretation of the evidence will be particularly subjective. In these circumstances how can it be possible for an inquiry's findings to be accepted as the unequivocal truth' behind the events?.
I intend to answer the above question and examine the issue of whether an inquiry's findings can simply be accepted as the truth', with particular reference to the recent, highly publicised inquiry conducted by Lord Hutton ("Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr Kelly-*). To enable the full analysis of the question I will provide a brief summary of the Hutton Report and the theory for not accepting its findings as the truth.