A Question of Perception

The Challenge:

Find the perfect apple. The apple must be perfect in size, color and shape. It must shine like no other and be free of any imperfections. It must stand out among the rest. It must meet every requirement so it is undoubtedly the most perfect apple to be found.

The Quest:

The search begins. Where do you go first on this quest? Of course, it’s the orchard. It seems like such a simple task, to find what stands out among the rest. Or it seems so likely it would be. As you look upon the many trees and the thousands of fruit before you, the task is not as simple as you’d thought it would be. As you walk tree to tree, some appear to be better than others, but none seem to be free of imperfection. Then one catches your eye, as you examine it further, it just doesn’t meet every criteria you were challenged to seek. You move on to another and another and wonder if close enough is going to be good enough to meet your goal.

The search stretches into weeks and orchard after orchard is searched, but the results yield the same frustrations. You wonder if it’s possible to solve this challenge. You don’t want to lose because of being too critical or focused on the perfection of the task, so you continue on with your quest.

As you continue from place to place in search of your goal, walking down the street toward your next destination, something catches your eye. It stops you dead in your tracks. It meets everything that you are searching so hard to find. It’s perfect in every count, just waiting to be found. It sits upon a pedestal; a perfect glass apple. It’s shape, it’s size, and color and gleam is everything you were sent to find. Its perfection is far beyond anything you have seen throughout your search. You have found what others have wanted to see.

The Dilemma:

Certainly the challenge was specific and exact. The perfect apple was the focus of this task. But will the fact that this apple is not real be sufficient to win this deed? Did the challenge really specify it needed to be a real apple or one that resembled the same? Is close enough just good enough to really winning this game? Your answer, as harmless as it may seem, may be the reason that this challenge is much greater than it seems.

The Real Analogy:

What was your answer to the challenge above? Was close enough good enough and meeting the physical criteria was sufficient to win? Or did you choose that since the apple wasn’t real, that your search needed to continue because you knew you were really looking for a real apple not a fake one?

The correct answer should always be that we look for the real deal, not something that appears to be close enough to claim it as the prize. This is the challenge in any investigation. To find the facts and the truth, which includes all the elements, you are put to task to find. Anything short of this puts innocence at risk and leaves the actual target of your search yet to be found.

The problem we see today is that too many cases are built solely upon circumstantial results, or the “glass apples” that best fit the profile. This seems to be close enough and with a bit of convincing they become believable enough. The question is, is this acceptable enough to make it become factual and real enough to meet the initial challenge? After all, we are not really talking about apples here. We are talking about human lives, all of whom have imperfections, being placed into harms way simply because it’s close enough to win the challenge.

Can you be fooled by the appearance of what appears to be real? Can you stand against the details of the challenge and demand perfection of the quest and it’s real intentions? Or will you succumb to the same delusional conclusion that when you stand staring into the orchard, that it’s just too difficult to find the true perfect apple that meets and fits your challenge? That it just becomes easier to accept the fake after being convinced that it’s the closet you will get to the real thing?

In the first season of “How to Get Away with Murder” Annalise Keating makes the comment to her students that “justice isn’t about the truth. It’s about who presents the best and most believable theory of the truth”. There is just too much truth in that comment. Don’t believe it? Then research any wrongful conviction case where there has been exoneration and ask yourself “how did they prosecute the wrong person if no direct evidence was available to convict them?”  That’s because they were the “glass apple” in their case. Because they best fit the challenge and quest of the system and they needed to win in order to give closure to the victim and their family and to also close a case to put the public’s need for safety and security at ease. A convincing and compelling theory placed upon the minds and conscience of the jury.

In the recent Netflix documentary “Making a Murderer”, one of Steven Avery’s attorneys said he didn’t believe that the Sheriff’s office set out to frame Avery. He said that he believed that they became so convinced that Avery was guilty of murder that their focus caused their actions to fill in the gaps needed to make him guilty of the crime. The acts of a couple officers certainly paved the path toward that appearance of guilt, while so much physical connecting evidence was vague and questionable. There is certainly the argument that much was left out of this documentary that may point to Avery’s actual guilt, but from the actual footage shown, too many errors and questions arise that support a great deal of reasonable doubt and questionable behavior that should have kept Avery from being convicted.

Avery’s attorney raised another good point. He commented that you and I would likely never be concerned about defending ourselves against murder because we know we would never commit the act in the first place. But…what if…you were falsely accused of it and became a focus of the investigation, what would your defense be? You’re innocent because it’s impossible for any evidence to point at you? Well, if the theory is good enough and the circumstances are close enough, might you too be that “glass apple” as well? It a precarious place you pray you never find yourself in, because you know and have come to understand, that this has and can happen to anyone if the challenge and quest is not clear cut and well defined as we all might hope and expect it to be.

The Real Question: Which would you decide?

1. Sometimes you just have to accept finding the “glass apple” because the real apple is just too hard or difficult to define or discover? It’s better to produce a result than produce nothing at all.

2. Never accept what is not clearly the real deal or the true result of the challenge and quest. Sometimes we must suck up our feelings and seek only the truth to protect the integrity of the process.