The question whether discourse analysis is able to shed light on the disputed 'authenticity' of conversations, can become crucial when legal proceedings rely on conversational tapes which sound scripted or contrived. This was the case in the Australian Ananda Marga bombing trials, when a radio journalist provided a 'lay' analysis of what he thought were their dubious claims to authenticity. Besides a critical examination of 'authenticity' of conversational data, this paper also questions the use of conversation analysis in quite practical settings of legal, commonsense and media judgements.