The nature of truth is very complex. This actually implies that it is difficult to find out the truth in most cases. Getting to find out what exactly happened in a situation or experience is like finding a needle lost amongst weeds. This is further explained by the inability of most people not to want to speak the truth even when it is so open. In a court case, for example, the accused is always focusing on providing the supportive evidence to have the case laid down even when he is fully aware of making the mistake. Truth is measured in different dimensions. It actually ranges from geographical coverage, social standing, individual needs and wants, as well as the attitudes at that point in time. What appears as truth to one person is not necessarily true to another person. It is all relative.
Errol Morris undertakes to emphasize what truth revolves around in his release “The Blue Line.” The story is about the murder of a police officer in Dallas, Texas in 1976. The murder came under very mysterious circumstances and various stakeholders wanted to get information of the truth. The stakeholders included the government, the police, local authorities, as well as the accused and accuser. The death of the policeman came in the course of duty.
The criminal act of killing occurs during the night. ( Morris, 2006 pg 141) This is when Randall Adams Harris went to the movies.
They also do some drinking spree as well as smoking of marijuana as part of their leisure activity. The story at this point now splits into different versions each narrated by either Adam or Harris. Harris claims that after coming from the motel, they resolved to go home. This is when they are stopped by a police officer on their way home. Adam decides to shoot the police man in the ensuing confrontation between the two of them. Adam however has it that Harris dropped him at his brother in a motel after enjoying his company with Harris in the night. The issue of truth comes out very clearly here. There are two sides of the coin, each with a relevant version that needs to be listened to. Each of the parties, Harris particularly wants to really prove that they are indeed innocent.
Harris is the accuser, while Adam is the accused. Harris is doing this to try and clear his name from the books of record. He plays the plot of sacrificing his good friend. It is a dilemma for the police, the authorities and the judge each of who want the truth to come out clear. Adam claims he was only dropped home in the night and that the whole idea was strange to him. Differentiating or separating the truth from the falsehood is an issue of concern in this case. This brings out clearly the complex dynamics of truth. It is hard to establish the exact location of its relevance. It is difficult to know who among these two people is speaking the truth. There are needs to become dynamics of relevant intervention to sort out the case in the most amicable manner possible.
The process of investigation is not all that impartial, free and fair. This is because the police are working with a lot of pressure. It is common phenomenon to have police officers being under pressure after an offence is committed. The pressure comes out of the need to present a compiled report of their findings on what is what. It must also be differentiated and clear in the sense that the judge can rely on it to make a judgment. This process makes the police intervention be swift. The results of all this is a shoddy report that is not clear enough and that does not establish the actual sense and truth of the matter. The circumstances are very flimsy and the evidence provided is an overreliance on the evidence provided by Harris.
The nature of truth in this case is important to the accused. (Morris, 2006 pg 219) This is because at the end of the day, he is willing to understand who exactly committed the offence. Adams, in his opinion claims he is not aware of what exactly transpired. He therefore has a lot of interest in the case since it will determine his fate. He is either going to be set free or spend time behind bars for the rest of his life. The latter happens. Harris, being the accused has intentions of clearing all doubts that he was involved in the case. He commits himself to provide evidence to the police, which are relied to deliver judgment by the court. The nature of truth will also determine his fate and possibility of having involved himself in crime.
The judges are also concerned about the truth in this case. They have the obligation to ensure that the rule of law is upheld. They must therefore make sure they establish what went wrong, so that they do not convict innocent people. At the same time, they must ensure that the person who actually committed the offence pays for it and does not go scot free. Police officers also rely on the truth in the movie. This is particularly so because it is one of them who suffered the blow of death through shooting. At the same time, it is their responsibility to ensure that they provide enough evidence based on truth and not fallacies to the courts.
Adam is finally convicted as having committed the offence and sentenced to life imprisonment. This in other terms is the death sentence. The Supreme Court, however, reverses this through application of an appeal. At the time the movie is created, Adam is already in jail for 11 years while Harris is also there for a different offence. The two are seen to have memories that can recollect effectively what exactly happened. The truth finally precipitates whereby it is known that Harris was driving a stolen car. He fears of being arrested by the police officer on duty during this fateful night. This is the reason that drives him to resort into killing.
It has been open to several people that Adam is straight in what he says and does, as opposed to Harris who appears witty in all his remarks. He further displays the high likelihood for artifice. Harris is difficult to read. He is very unpredictable. The police seem to believe Harris while other people, including the local authorities, do not believe him.