The Most Believable Testimony in "The Bamboo Grove" in Rashōmon "The Bamboo Grove" is a short story written in December of 1921 by the Japanese writer, Ryūnosuke Akutagawa. The short fiction piece is included in the book, Rashōmon and Seventeen Other Stories. The story reveals the testimonies of many people of varying social classes, describing what they remember from a crime scene, or what they have witnessed in relation to the crime that had just taken place. Some of the testimonies have overlapping information while others, vary immensely. Although most people may not believe in mediums, the most believable testimony is that of the dead man’s spirit told through a medium because it is the most accumulative, is the most descriptive and neither he nor the medium have a reason to lie unlike the other witnesses do. The testimony of the dead man through the medium is a combination of most of the other testimonies told by primary sources. The dead man begins his testimony with a piece of information that is included in all the other testimonies of the people who were involved in the crime. He sets the scene by saying, "After the bandit had his way with my wife, he sat there on the ground, trying to …show more content…
The other testimonies are all fairly vague when recounting exactly how the man died. The dead man’s testimony through the medium is more specific and graphic about his death. The medium says, "Lying there before me was the dagger that my wife had dropped. I picked it up and shoved it into my chest. Some kind of bloody mass rose to my mouth, but I felt no pain at all. My chest grew cold, and then everything sank into stillness" (19). The other testimonies did not paint a picture when describing the man’s death, they simply state that he is killed. From this, the imagery is quite vivid and is something that would be difficult to lie about and do so with such great
At this point, the speaker's newfound empathy toward the killer prompts his diatribe about American support of capital punishment. He begins with a hypothetical portrayal of an audience chaotically discussing the meaning of the word "kill," each person exclaiming "how they spell it" and "what it means to them." Subsequently, he recounts a story about insensitive reporters at a hanging, followed by a claim that "we throw killers in one grave / and victims in another. We form sides / and have two separate feasts." While the speaker may seem to be utilizing the description of the audience and the story of the reporters in order to denounce the mindset of his peers, he is in fact condemning his own former mentality. By denying five times that he is a witness, the speaker avoids the guilt that results from involvement in the death of another man. Through his repeated use of the phrase "I am not a witness," he essentially enables and catalyzes the execution of the killer, dismissing his humanity and conforming to the opinion that he deserves to be killed; however, once the speaker recognizes his fault and his conformity to this mindset, the tone of the poem suddenly shifts. The speaker's empathy for the killer reaches its maximum when he fully understands the pain of the condemned and finally sees the killer as his equal, which prompts his own admission of guilt and prior indifference: "I am a
O'Brien explains how the stories told about those who have passed are meant to keep the deceased's life alive. The "weight of memory" was one thing all the solders carried (14). When added to the physical weight of their gear and the emotional burdens of war, it was all too much. In response, the men altered their perceptions of the truth in order to lighten the haunting weight of memory. O'Brien suggests "in a true war story nothing is ever absolutely true," memory is altered to compensate for its weight (82). In this way, O'Brien, and the rest of the men, were able to utilize "story-truth (179)." Stories alter truth, therefore, a well-told story can actually allow the dead to continue to live on. "In a story, the dead sometimes smile and sit up and return to the world (225)." In this way you could "keep the dead alive" with "blatant lies, bringing the body and soul back together (239)." O'Brien remembers listening to a story about Curt Lemon. He recalls how "you'd never know that Curt Lemon was dead (240)." It seemed like "he was still out there in the dark" yet, "he was dead (240)." Similarly O'Brien uses story to save his childhood friend's life, "not her body - her life (236)." In his stories Linda "can smile and sit up. She can reach out (236)." He allows her to come to life and "touch [h...
3. A testimony by a morgue worker stated that there were signs of surgery done to his head prior to showing up.
Others may believe the narrator/caretaker form “The Tell-Tale Heart” is the most unreliable because he had killed very violently for no reason. In “The Tell-Tale Heart”, the narrator says, “I cut off the head and the arms and the legs….There was nothing to wash out- no stain of any kind- no blood spot whatever. I had been too wary for that. A tub had caught all-ha! ha!” (Poe 3). The belief that the narrator in “The Tell-Tale Heart” is the most unreliable is incorrect. The narrator in “The Tell-Tale Heart” had killed very violently for a reason while, in “Strawberry Spring”, the narrator describes the murders, “But Springheel Jack killed her just the same, going unerringly for one of our own. The false spring, the lying spring, aided and abetted him - he killed her and left her propped behind the wheel of her 1964 Dodge to be found the next morning and they found part of her in the back seat and part of her in the trunk. And written in blood on the windshield - this time fact instead of rumour - were two words: HA! HA!” (King 4). The narrator in “Strawberry Spring” was violent for no reason. The narrator in “The Tell-Tale Heart” was violent because he was trying to not get caught after he killed the old man. There are huge reasons for why they were violent and the other narrator in “The Tell-Tale
The teller showed no unusual emotion while retelling this story to me. He was positive that it was not true. He told the story in a mocking tone; he sometimes finished his sentences with laughter or a smile.
Cheng, Ah. The King of Trees. Trans. Bonnie S. McDougall. New York: New Directions, 2010. Print.
The mind is a very powerful tool when it is exploited to think about situations out of the ordinary. Describing in vivid detail the conditions of one after his, her, or its death associates the mind to a world that is filled with horrific elements of a dark nature.
Crimelibrary.com, (2014). The Mystery of Howard Hughes — Psychological Autopsy helps us understand controversial deaths — Crime Library. [online] Available at: http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psych_autopsy/4.html [Accessed 5 May. 2014].
The confirmation of credible and authoritative sources such as the medical expert’s affidavit and information reported by the Atlanta Journal Constitution are components of the essay that add validity and sustenance to Shemtob and Lat’s argument. Inductive reasoning is again used to explain to the reader that although executions are performed in the same manner on different individuals patterns of violent effects are not present as acknowledged by “Mr. DeYoung although executed in the same manner as Roy Blankenship who exhibited violent signs in death did not exhibit the same signs”
On the night of January 13, 2013, Jeffrey Wright was killed after causing his wife, Susan Wright, years of distress and abuse. His body was disfigured after being stabbed approximately 193 times. The body lay on his former mattress which had become blood-soaked and cut up. Attached to his wrists are ties which had been used to anchor him to the bed, making him unable to escape. His last visual memory was the sight of his wife hovering over him with a knife, wondering how she had been able to do what she was about to do. How could she, his wife, betray him and kill him with no remorse?
Cheng, Ah. The King of Trees. Trans: Bonnie S. McDougall. New York,NY: New Directions, 2010. Print.
While reading the case about Mr.Hossack 's murder i saw the wife, Mrs.Hossack, as innocent at first. The children all claimed that the two did not argue for over a year, so why would she kill him now verses a year ago? When the youngest child, Ivan Hossack, came to the stand and "told his story in a straight, unhesitating manner" it made it easier for me to believe in Mrs. Hossack 's innocence. The child even said that he saw his mother aiding his father when he called out for help. If she had been the one to swing the axe, why would she help him and risk getting in trouble? Most importantly, if he was conscious and talking, why wouldn 't he say who to murderer was? He could have easily identified his wife in the dark after being married for over twenty years, and yet he didn 't identify who had tried to kill him. Dr. Dean first stated that the axe did not hit the speech portion of the brain, so he could have been conscious and yelling out for his wife. Dean later stated that the fatal blow from the axe would have left Mr.Hossack unconscious. The murder weapon had blood on in and apparent hairs stuck to one side; "Prof. John L. Tilton of Simpson college... was unable to say definitely that the hair had been
People say the mind is a very complex thing. The mind gives people different interpretations of events and situations. A person state of mind can lead to a death of another person. As we all know death is all around us in movies, plays, and stories. The best stories that survive throughout time involve death in one form or another. For example, William Shakespeare is considered as one of the greatest writers in literary history known for having written a lot of stories concerning death like Macbeth or Julius Caesar. The topic of death in stories keeps people intrigued and on the edge of their seats. Edgar Allan Poe wrote two compelling stories that deal with death “The Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Raven.” In “The
At the end of “The Tell-Tale Heart”, Poe’s fascination with death is apparent when the narrator ruthlessly killed an old man with a disturbing eye, but felt so guilty that he confessed to the police. The narrator dismembered the old man’s body and hid them in the floor, confident that they were concealed. However, when the police came to investigate, the narrator heard a heart beating and began to crack under the pressure. Overcome with guilt, he confessed that he murdered him and pulled up the floorboards. The narrator exclaimed, “But anything was better than this agony! Anything was more tolerable than this derision!” (“Heart” 4). Although the narrator was calm and confident at first, the guilt he experienced drove him mad, causing...
It is a story that provides the ultimate explanation of how two different people who are witnesses to a crime give completely different psychological recollections of the same event. The author reminds us that truth depends on the telling. Someone must step forward and tell that truth.