The crucial role that examination of witnesses plays in the determination of the weight of oral evidence in criminal proceedings has traditionally been hampered by excessive application of the hearsay rule and the rule against narrative, both of which to a greater or lesser extent, preclude access by the trier of fact to previous statements of the witness being examined which may shed valuable light on the veracity of his testimony in court. This article defends the law in Singapore permitting more liberal reliance on a witness's previous statements and argues that the liberalisation in the law can be taken further. The relevance of probabilistic reasoning in weight determination is also discussed and the article argues that probabilistic reasoning in weight determination should not be conflated with probabilistic reasoning in the determination of the standard of proof of guilt.