Just the Facts Ma'am... (or should we be asking for the truth?)

 Did you know that the catch phrase "Just the facts Ma'am" attributed to Joe Friday on the show Dragnet, was never really said by the origial Joe Friday? Is that the truth?  Or is it a fact?  Well the truth is - it is a fact!

I've often thought that 'swearing to tell the truth and nothing but the truth'  in court was a little problematic. One person's truth may not be another person's truth.  Hence conflicting testimony.   What we are looking for in reality is facts.  Facts that illustrate what has happened. (or is happening)  Facts are always supported by 'hard evidence'. 

Unfortunately sometimes despite searching for hard evidence we are unable to find it. 

---

What we rely on when we cannot find hard evidence to support fact is the story or the 'truth' that someone reveals.  It may be something that they saw or heard or understood to have happened. It is told through the lens of how they experienced something.  Truth is subjective.  We all have our truths.  The story as we believe it.  It is reflective of what we experienced  - but is influenced by our values, our prior knowledge and our understanding.

When it comes to eye-witness testimony - the problem remains that the human memory is not a video camera. Details that may be relevant and may have been observed by the human eye may not be something that we can consciously recall. We may still be able to verify bits and pieces of an event from eyewitness testimony when it is supported by hard evidence.  That does not mean that eye witeness testimony is not valuable - it just means that it may be altered by our feelings, prior experiences and even values.

What does remain however is fact.  When someone claims that something is true - it may be true as far as they believe - but if there is no way to verify the truth with any supporting evidence - it cannot be called fact.

In court however a Judge can rule a testimony (or the truth as it is told by someone) to be credible and it can be given the same weight as fact. In any dispute however - until this happens - truth told without supporting evidence should never be considered as fact. ​

So how is it that someone can claim that something is the 'truth' despite others having evidence to the contrary?  If you call them a liar - they can become insulted and insist that what they are telling you is true.  And it is true - for them.  It is the story as they understand it. And some may cling to their 'truth' despite evidence to the contrarty simply because of pride - or the fear of being 'wrong'.​

Unfortunately these folks may not have the capacity to understand that this is what they are doing - nor do they have the ability to find the fact to support their truth.

In some cases someone may repeat  unfactual things to themselves and other so many times that they can convince themselves and others that it is truth.  

When someone challenges their beliefs, they think that the louder and more often that they say something they can 'make' it true.  ​I often wonder when people do this - what has happened in their lives to have tainted their ability to see the facts when presented to them.

Social media is often a place where this repetition of 'truths' without facts turn up  and often followers or people reading believe unverified stories that people tell, out of loyalty or because they see the 'conviction' of the person saying it.  Often its just easier to believe something because it resonates with our values and understanding - or we may be too lazy or uninterested to verify the story.

Should we be angry and outraged when someone claims something is true - when we have evidence to the contrary? Well that may be the common response - especially if the "truth " the person is telling harms us - or someone we know.  Or if it alters a decision that can affect an important outcome. Or if it appears to rally others who have not verified the information or story.

Our best action to deal with people who continue to say things we understand are untrue is to to look for and present hard evidence to reveal the facts.  Because in the end, facts will over-ride unverified truth.  So when someone insists something is true - perhaps ask them for the evidence to back up their story.

As for Joe Friday - if you do your research - and if necessary get all the transcripts for the original radio and TV series - you will find that the evidence shows that he never did say. "Just the facts Ma'am" in those earlier shows. That catch phrase only only occured when  Dan Aykroyd  starred as Joe Friday  in the remake of Dragnet with Tom Hanks as his partner  - and it was released in 1987. 

• ​

In closing, this video says it best - ​https://youtu.be/qM4bEEJ5h2o