Getting at the Truth

Facts are slippery. The case of the Toronto cyclist, Darcy Allan Sheppard, killed by an Ontario attorney-general, Michael Bryant, appears to be another example of how truth is elusive.

There is a very good commentary on this case by Judith Timson, a writer for The Globe and Mail. First she sets up the :

The horrific Michael Bryant case, in which the former Ontario attorney-general has been charged in the death of a bicycle courier in Toronto, has been tidily summed up just about everywhere as our own Bonfire of the Vanities . It's an apt comparison, because beneath the facts lies a bubbling cauldron of social resentments, mistrust of authority and other prejudices that may well tell us more about ourselves than about anything else.

Go read her whole article. It is worth your time.

This story does have the tenor of a social clash. In Bonfire of the Vanities, a NY bond trader kills a mugger. Here a high official kills a bike courier. In the novel, the Master of the Universe -- the bond trader -- is brought down from his glitzy life. Will the same happen to Michael Bryant?

As Timson points out, there are already maneuvers to push this story around to "position it":

• Sheppard goes from nice guy to a drunk, just an hour before in police custody, and painted as emotionally out-of-control.


• Bryant goes from an upper crust politician with money, power, and privilege swatting off the cyclist and crushing him cruelly but indifferently like you would a fly, to being painted as nice middle class guy out for a quiet evening when out of the blue he was mugged in his car by a crazed bike courier who seized the wheel and caused Bryant to lose control of his car.

As the journalist points out:

Listen, they could resurrect Gandhi to specially prosecute this case, but if the former attorney-general prevails in his declaration of innocence, a sizable number of citizens will believe that the case was rigged from the moment Mr. Bryant was allowed to emerge from a night in custody to face the cameras, not unshaven and rumpled like most people, but impeccably turned out in a sharp suit and shirt and tie.

Timson presents the case that this won't be a great moral tale. Instead it will be a sordid human drama of petty mistakes and unexpected consequences. She may be right. But the part that worries me is the fact that Sheppard was dragged down the street until he was driven into a mailbox and killed. If Bryant was the innocent, why the foot to the accelerator? Is he going to argue that he was in fear for his life from a deranged cyclist and his only "defense" was to crush Sheppard against a mail box?

Who knows the outcome. I think Timson hits the right tone. We really are in the dark right now and the case will evolve. But she has more faith than I do that the justice system will get to the bottom. She believe that all the facts will come out and truth will prevail.

My own experience with the "justice system" fifteen years ago was an eye opener. I had always thought the courts were there to hear both sides and try to get at the truth, i.e. seek justice. But I discovered that neither side had an interest in the truth, they are contenders not dispassionate seekers, and the judge was passive and lets the two sides present whatever story they think will "sell". In the end, the judge picks a "winner". This theory of "justice" is that it will emerge from a contest. That surprised me.

As a kid I was sold the idea of the legal system as seeking justice and truth. But the legal system has nothing to do with uncovering the truth. There are no "scales of justice" on which all the evidence is weighed. It is purely a contest. The side with the better "story" wins. That is why being rich and getting the best lawyer money can buy means you get one result while the poor who can't afford expensive lawyers get a different kind of "justice".

In this system, there will be no effort to truly understand what happened between Sheppard and Bryant. Instead each side will paint the other in the most incriminating colours it can hoping they will stick. Then a "judgement" will be passed. Truth will not be present in the process unless you believe that "truth emerges from a contest between two antagonists selling their story". But if there is no impartial attempt to dig into the "story" and get at the truth, how can "selling a story" deliver justice, especially if one side can hire a golden tongue lawyer?

This isn't how the legal system is advertised. But this is indeed how it works. This I saw from my own experience. It was a horrible letdown for me to realize that the system had no interest in fact or truth. It was just a process. A very expensive process. And one tilted toward the rich.