In an argument map arguments are structured in reasons or evidence and premises, providing oversight of the information at hand. The step after constructing an argument tree is to evaluate the evidence or reasons for or against the main claim in terms of relevanceand credibility. To deal with the different contents in the argument tree, it is necessary to have an extended argument tree where the different types of content might need different types of justification. It is also, as will be shown in the following, important to expand thetree and explore so called justification defeaters in the intelligence context, particularly connected to testimony and the component of agency (or lack of it), with the risk of deliberate deception or gullibility in either the one giving the testimony or the one receiving it. One suggestion is to add boxes and use a list of justificatory defeaters for boxes of testimony in the argument tree. The question this paperaims to answer is: How can the philosophical notion of “justified be-lief” (as a general understanding of justification) be understood and used in the intelligence context connected to testimony and evaluating sources? The suggestion is: as a belief or statement where justification defeaters have been taken into account explicitly.