(Slugline Challenge set by Kirsty)
Like riding a bike, you never forget how to tell a convincing lie once you learn. I would almost go so far to say that it is the true form of human nature, because truth is such a fragile creature. Want to know more? Well young pup, take a seat and I’ll try and explain.
Now the main question that has to be answered is ‘What is Truth?”
I hear the more logical thinkers out there claim that truth is something based in fact. Right? Or something that can be corroborated by evidence. However, truth can be subverted, and this is the key fact, hence why it is such a fragile thing. Why? Because truth is based on humanity, and humans are very fallible beings and they will lie for numerous reasons. For instance, personal gain, to protect someone (or self), deceive someone (or self) or to make someone just leave something alone.
Once you learn that basic… err… truth about truth. The rest is easy. The best way to lie is to take the truth and subvert it, because then you are taking elements of the truth and the hearer finds it more believable because it tallies up more with their version of events, or what they’ve heard or what they suspect to be feasible. If you try to clutch something out of thin air, the person that you’re trying to lie to will see the holes in your ‘story’. Their own mind will pick at it and gnaw away at it until it falls apart as the fabrication that it is. However, mix a bit of truth in there… Everything seems a lot tighter, there’s less gaps, less loose strands to tie up, because the truth does some of the work for you.
Lost, ok, take a court proceeding. The prosecutor and defendant take the pieces of the events, the hows, whats, whys, etc. The evidence that builds there case to try and sway the jury to see things from their side of things. We have a domestic dispute that has gone traditionally Agatha Christie and the poor wife has ended up in a pool of her own blood and the husband isn’t much better off and he’s in a crumpled heap, holding the corpse of his loved one. Now you reading this have already formed your own opinion of what went down.
So the prosecutor takes the stand. He tells you, the jury, that the husband was a man that liked his booze and would often be drunk on a Friday. That, he had been drinking that evening. That three people saw the events that took place and that their testimony plus the evidence should leave them in no doubt of his guilt. However what they don’t tell you is that not all the evidence points conclusively to his guilt and that the CPS is paying him handsomely if he wins this case.
Then the defence takes the stand and implores you to see this for the tragic accident that it was. Yes, the husband had had a couple, however so had the wife. He has evidence proving it as well. It was an argument that got out of hand, words, fists and then a knife got in the mix. It was tragic. A man has lost a woman he loved dearly. Not only that, but this accident has also robbed a boy of his mother. Could they honestly imprison his only other parent over something that was truly a horrible accident? What they don’t say? Is that they have next to nothing to back up their words. Their defence is circumstancial and is imploring to their emotional side to stop the convicting their client… because they get paid more if the husband is cleared or has a reduced sentence.
The witnesses take the stand. The first is the wife’s friend John. He was in the other room and happened to walk in at the point that they were struggling over the knife. He saw it plunge into the wife. He said that the husband was out of control, enraged. However, what he doesn’t say is that he was madly in love with the wife and was immensely jealous of the husband. Not only that, but he had said the bullshit that had started the fight and was walking in to see the fruit of his labour.
The second witness is the defendant’s mother. She was in the kitchen the whole time, preparing food. She was talking to the husband about this and that and the village rumours and then the wife came in and flew completely off the handle. The wife was always a little insecure and unhinged don’t you know. Came in accusing this and that then started hurling things. Drew a knife and then went for him. He tried to calm her, then wrestle it from her grasp. They fell and next then they know. She cries at this point. The wife was dying, apologising for being so silly… What she doesn’t say? It’s fairly obvious here… IT’S HER SON!!!!! She’s not going to allow him to be condemned. What’s more, she probably ignored most of it because when we’re caught in the same room as a domestic dispute. the last thing we want to be is there, nor do we want to seem like we are listening just in case we get hauled into it…
The third, was someone who heard the commotion and came to help. They heard her shouts, then his, then the cries for help. The truth here? They weren’t entirely sure of what they heard and when they came to investigate they saw her on the floor, him over the body and assumed. Was asked by the police what happened and saw their fifteen minutes.
NOW! You the jury, have heard all this. Seen the bloody knife, the clothing, the pictures of the state of the kitchen… Do you condemn or save him?
Want to know what happened?
She was accusing him of cheating. He was defending himself by arguing back because he was innocent, because John was shit stirring. They were both a little tipsy, but things got out of hand. Plates got thrown. Then when she ran out, she drew a knife and went for him. He tried to get it out of her hand and calm her down. She had slipped on some cucumber that had spilled onto the floor from the mother’s food preparation and caught the husband off guard and they both fell. The knife, sadly, went into her.
So…
Did you just condemn an innocent man?
Thing is, through out all of that, the truth was lost. All were using elements of the truth, but the truth itself, was lost. Some of those statements were more believable than others. Some may have swayed you more than others. Because they seemed closer to the truth than the others.
Now apply that to everyday. Because no one needs training in how to lie. You do it everyday. Someone asks you how you are.
You reply “I’m OK.”
Now whether it’s to your gain that they think that.
Or maybe you’re protecting someone.. or yourself…
Or maybe you just want them to leave the subject alone…
I can more or less guarantee that you’re not and that you are something else entirely… you just don’t want them to know.