Atticus Finch screwed up

Cafe Society
1

I’m not sure if this should be in Cafe Society or MPSIMS, but the coin was heads up and it’s here.

When Atticus was questioning Tom Robinson, Tom said that Mayella had told him that she had saved seven nickels to send her siblings off to get ice cream that day (thus getting them out of the house so she could seduce Tom).

Why didn’t Atticus call as a witness the ice cream parlor guy? It must have been a highly unusual event to have all seven Ewell kids in town at once, each with money enough for ice cream. Testimony from this guy may or may not have changed the jury’s verdict, but it’s a glaring omission, IMO.

2

The novel is social commentary, Tom was doomed.
A very good idea in real life, but it would have just taken up room in the novel.

3

Can you elaborate? I thought she did send the kids off to get ice cream. The kids were not around for the failed seduction.

4

Heh, the whole point is that the jury (and everyone in town) knew beyond reasonable doubt that Tom wasn’t guilty by the end of the trial - but they condemned him anyway.

No amount of additional proof would have made any difference.

5

Yes, she did. That is, if Tom’s recounting of her words is true, which we assume it was. Thus, Atticus could’ve gotten confirmation of Tom’s version of the event simply by calling ice cream parlor guy to the stand as a witness.

6

Tom’s indictment and conviction was a historical version of the ever-popular notion of black men constantly wondering “Where de white women at?”.

As others have mentioned, the novel was social commentary and, as such, Tom was doomed no matter what happened at the trial. Cecil B. DeMille himself could have shown up and played footage he had recorded for a documentary film that would have helped Tom’s defense and it wouldn’t have made a difference.

Also, it was social commentary that Atticus was a moral and right-thinking man and therefore even the defense he did mount was was beyond the bounds of what any right-thinking Southerner (in Macomb’s purview) would have been expected to endeavor to so, again, it was just enough to pronounce those 12 jurors guilty, even without a further attempt to add exculpatory evidence for Tom Robinson.

7

Corroborating Tom’s story about the ice cream would only have cemented in the jury’s mind the fact that he was there alone with Mayella. It wouldn’t have done anything toward proving his version of the story, because nothing could do that. He was wrong from the get-go, no matter what proof might be offered.

8

The facts of what happened, and particularly those that are circumstantial, are of no consequence. Mayella’s story had already been discredited (Tom’s inability to use both arms) and yet he was still convicted.

While it is true that the novel is social commentary, that is really almost incidental. Lee is first and foremost telling a story of her own childhood and her affection for her father. (That her view is idealized and Atticus such an almost unbelievably shining hero is not a fair criticism in that it is told from the idolatrous point of view of a young girl.) It is a great novel because it never stoops to preaching or pedantry, and because although Atticus ultimately fails in his effort to save Tom Robinson, he succeeds in teaching by example the need for sacrifice, fairness, and empathy in the face of overwhelming opposition.

Stranger

9

Bingo.

Atticus Finch screw up? Bite your tongue.

10

Moving from MPSIMS to Cafe Society.

11

As my Lit teacher once phrased it, Tom was actually convicted of “being Black with a White woman”. The actual charges or facts of the case were immaterial. They were just the justification to punish Tom.

12

It’s also important to note that the politics and the beliefs of the ice cream parlor guy are an unknown. The most likely case is that he would have said whatever supported Tom’s conviction. An open contradiction of Tom’s testimony could have hurt their chances for an appeal.

What you almost never hear in discussions of this book is how the jury, sheriff, etc were also giving tacit approval for the beating of Mayella. Nobody wanted to see Mr. Ewell punished for his treatment of his daughter and her siblings. Disgusting.

13

Can’t expect better from trash.

14

I’ve never made such a complaint in the first place, but for a completely different reason. The way I see it, yes, people genuinely as good and great as Atticus is depicted are extraordinarily rare… But such rare people are precisely the ones who deserve to have books written about them. He’s not meant to be typical: The mere fact that he’s the one the book is written about is evidence that he’s atypical.

15

I agree with this. Apart from the literary reasons, it’s easy to imagine that Atticus explored the strategy of having the ice cream store guy testify, but rejected it because he was part of the silent white conspiracy. Also, all it proves is that the kids went and got ice cream. Maybe it was a “crime of opportunity.”

16

All the calling of the ice-cream guy would tend to confirm is that the complainant bought her siblings ice-cream. That doesn’t prove that she bought them ice-cream in order to seduce Tom.

She would say she bought them ice-cream because she is a nice sister.

I can’t remember if the complainant was questioned by Atticus about this at the trial, but in a real trial she would have to be before the matter could be taken further evidentially.

There are then two possibilities, in reality. She might deny having given the kids the money to buy ice-cream, or she might admit it, saying she was a nice sister, and that it had nothing to do with the sex.

If she agreed she did it, then there is no need to call the ice-cream guy. There is a rule against multiplying issues, sometimes called the finality rule. If there is an issue that only goes to a witness’s credit (as opposed to a matter directly related to proof in the case) then there are limits to the extent to which it can be litigated beyond the ipse dixit of the witness whose credit is challenged.

Suppose a rape complainant says she was wearing a red dress and the defence wants to suggest it was blue to challenge her believability on other more important issues. They ask her. And they are stuck with the answer they get. They can’t derail the trial into a trial about the complainant’s colour vision accuity, her wardrobe contents, her recent purchases of clothes, her taste in general, merely to make a minor point.

On the other hand if the complainant says the suspect was wearing red when there is other evidence the offender wore blue, that can be litigated because it goes to the issue of identity, which is essential to proof.

The difference between peripheral matters of credit and matters central to proof can be difficult to discern, and there is a degree of leeway sometimes offered in such cases, but buying the kids icecream may well only go peripherally to the issue of consent.

Now if she denied saving up to buy the kid’s ice-cream altogether, the story might be different (there are exceptions to the finality rule). But the problem is not solved for the defence by calling the ice-cream guy. His evidence would not be sufficient to prove where the money came from. The mere fact that the kids turned up with money does not establish who gave it to them. And even if the kids told the ice-cream guy where it came from, it would be hearsay for the ice-cream guy to repeat that. Unless the kids who were given the money were called, this is likely going nowhere.

It would be a brave counsel who called a girl’s younger siblings to give evidence that would essentially call her a tramp (in the environment of this trial). It has such obvious possibilities of back-firing even if the kids could be got to court that many counsel would not risk it.