Should he accept Jones’s statement as a denial of participation in the project to maintain anonymity?

Case study dilemma: Should he accept Jones’s statement as a denial of participation in the project to maintain anonymity? Should he accuse Jones of lying? Should he drop the matter for the moment and later tell Cash about the incident? Perhaps Cash had lied about interviewing Jones? Should be confront Cash with this suspicion? Since it was some distance to the field site from the university, should he [Jordan] now seek out other informants Cash had reported on to determine whether or not they had been interviewed? Or, were there other tactics to be employed?
Point of view: the social-impact of the assessment team
Sources I have to use,
Martin, Brian. The Whistleblower’s Handbook: How to Be an Effective Resister. www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/99wh.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
Anonymity and Confidentiality . eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/423/1/0206_anonymity and confidentiality.pdf.
“To Tell or Not to Tell? The Ethical Dilemma of the Would-Be Whistleblower.” Taylor and Francis Online, www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621003791929 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
attachmentResearchCaseStudyInstructions.docattachmentCaseStudy-LegalEthics-FalsifiedDataCasev2.pdf