Skip to main content

What facts and testimonies do not support Tom Robinson's case?

While several testimonies easily do not support Tom Robinson’s case, it’s harder to find facts that contradict his version of events, especially given that To Kill A Mockingbird’s theme, purpose, and message rely on Tom Robinson’s innocence. The testimonies that incriminate Tom are woefully inaccurate, as well as motivated by prejudice, self-interest, and spite.


For example, Mayella testifies against Tom. In her version of events, she asked Tom to dismantle a chiffarobe (a piece...

While several testimonies easily do not support Tom Robinson’s case, it’s harder to find facts that contradict his version of events, especially given that To Kill A Mockingbird’s theme, purpose, and message rely on Tom Robinson’s innocence. The testimonies that incriminate Tom are woefully inaccurate, as well as motivated by prejudice, self-interest, and spite.


For example, Mayella testifies against Tom. In her version of events, she asked Tom to dismantle a chiffarobe (a piece of wooden furniture) in exchange for a nickel. According to Mayella, once Tom was inside the Ewells' home, he brutally attacked and raped her. Her father saw the end of the rape, and Tom fled. This testimony is absolutely not airtight, however! Atticus points out that Tom could not have overpowered Mayella since he does not have any use of his left hand due to an accident in his youth. Mayella’s injuries were concentrated on the right side of her body, indicating that she was beaten by a left-handed person. Her father writes with his left hand, thus pointing to him as a potential suspect. Given that Mayella’s story relies on an impossibility, we are more likely to believe Tom’s side, especially since  it does not rest on an obvious distortion of the truth. In Tom’s version, he came inside the house to bust up the chiffarobe, and Mayella inappropriately touched and tried to kiss him without his consent. Bob Ewell saw this, and while Tom fled because he knew that the law would punish him in spite of his victim status, Bob savagely attacked Mayella.


Bob also testifies against Tom. He says that he saw Tom raping Mayella. Bob, however, only has his eyewitness testimony to support his claim. Bob did not call for a doctor after the rape, so no one else can confirm his assertion. 


The only fact that might possibly not support Tom Robinson’s case is that he has previously been in trouble for fighting. In this case, however, it appears that he was defending himself against a much stronger opponent and that both of them were punished. The Ewells’ lawyer tries to persuade the jury that this previous incident means that Tom’s personality is malicious, therefore proving that he raped Mayella. This is a stretch of logic that presumes too much from a simple fact. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the meaning of "juggling fiends" in Macbeth?

Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a... Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a sense of guilt, and that man tells him: Despair thy charm. And let the angel whom thou still hast serve...

What are some external and internal conflicts that Montag has in Fahrenheit 451?

 Montag, the protagonist of Fahrenheit 451, faces both external and internal conflicts throughout the novel. Some examples of these conflicts are: External Conflicts: Conflict with the society: Montag lives in a society that prohibits books and critical thinking. He faces opposition from the government and the people who enforce this law. Montag struggles to come to terms with the fact that his society is based on censorship and control. Conflict with his wife: Montag's wife, Mildred, is completely absorbed in the shallow and meaningless entertainment provided by the government. Montag's growing dissatisfaction with his marriage adds to his external conflict. Conflict with the fire captain: Montag's superior, Captain Beatty, is the personification of the oppressive regime that Montag is fighting against. Montag's struggle against Beatty represents his external conflict with the government. Internal Conflicts: Conflict with his own beliefs: Montag, at the beginning of th...

In A People's History of the United States, why does Howard Zinn feel that Wilson made a flimsy argument for entering World War I?

"War is the health of the state," the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War. Indeed, as the nations of Europe went to war in 1914, the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches. -- Chapter 14, Page 350, A People's History of the United States Howard Zinn outlines his arguments for why World War I was fought in the opening paragraph of Chapter 14 (referenced above). The nationalism that was created by the Great War benefited the elite political and financial leadership of the various countries involved. Socialism, which was gaining momentum in Europe, as was class struggle, took a backseat to mobilizing for war. Zinn believes that World War I was fought for the gain of the industrial capitalists of Europe in a competition for capital and resources. He states that humanity itself was punished by t...