robbing Mr. Swan when they met at Mr. Barnett’s father’s home
over the Christmas holidays.
 The second part of the analysis reveals that the primary
hearsay danger raised by those aspects of the statements is the
difficulty in ascertaining the sincerity of the claims regarding the
appellant’s alleged involvement in the robbery.
 The third part of the analysis invites the court to consider
alternative, even speculative, explanations for the statements. In
the circumstances of this case, there are several alternative
explanations for both statements.
 With respect to Mr. Mullen, there were four potential
motives identified by the appellant’s counsel to falsely implicate
the appellant in the robbery plot. First, the appellant had made
an allegation that the Toronto Three had threatened him by holding a gun to his head, which implicated them in a further crime.
Second, the police suggested to Mr. Mullen that the appellant’s
account might lead a jury to conclude that the Toronto Three had
planned in advance to shoot Mr. Swan. Third, the police suggested to Mr. Mullen that the appellant was more likely to support
Mr. Barnett’s version of events and that he was going to “buddy
up . . . with Dylon’s side and fuck you [Mullen]. . .” Fourth,
Mr. Mullen was upset about the allegation that the appellant had
been threatened and this gave him an incentive to falsely implicate the appellant out of spite. I accept that these are all credible
explanations for Mr. Mullen’s statement.
 With respect to Mr. McLellan, the appellant’s counsel identified three potential motives to falsely implicate the appellant in
the robbery plot. First, as was the case with Mr. Mullen, the
appellant’s statement implicated Mr. McLellan in a further
crime. Second, the appellant had specifically alleged that it
was Mr. McLellan who held the gun to his head. This evidence
put Mr. McLellan in possession of a gun before the shooting.
Mr. McLellan, at the time, was denying being the shooter, giving
him a further motive to discredit the appellant. Third, as the trial
judge noted, it was possible the pair had a conversation about
Mr. Mullen’s September 2010 police statement. This fact, coupled
with a police suggestion to Mr. McLellan that the best way to discredit the appellant was by supporting Mr. Mullen’s statement,
provided Mr. McLellan with a motive to corroborate the account
that Mr. Mullen had previously given to police. I accept these as
valid potential motives for falsely implicating the appellant.
 The final part of the analysis requires the court to closely
examine the corroborative evidence led at the voir dire to determine whether it rules out these alternative explanations, such
that the only remaining likely explanation for the statement is