evidentiary:alchemy

Good stories do not rely solely on evidence or fascinating characters.  They must be told in a compelling way, with an irresistable voice.  Look at what happened to the Scott Peterson murder trial, when Chief Deputy District Attorney Birgit Fladager decided to join her colleagues in court.  Defense Attorney Mark Geragos lost his opportunities for theatrics, the witnesses seemed more credible, and the prosecution case suddenly seemed more persuasive: 

Birgit Fladager, a chief deputy district attorney, worked on the case from the start, but did not attend the trial regularly until several weeks in and did not question a witness until Sept. 13 ...

Before Fladager took a seat at the prosecution table, criminal defense lawyer Paula Canny observed, "the energy often felt flat and Geragos absolutely ruled that courtroom, and when she came in, it sort of restored the balance a little bit."

"She commands a lot of presence in the courtroom and speaks with conviction and is very organized. She didn't look scared and sometimes, Harris and Distaso look nervous," she said ...

Former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer said that after Fladager's arrival, Geragos' "running comedy hour routine" ended ...

(Ryan, 2004)

The key words here are that she didn't look scared.  Have you ever read a story or essay in which the author seemed afraid of her own characters, memories, or plot?  In which it seemed the author held back, failing to ask the right questions - or failing to ask questions at all?  When an author is confident in her process, voice, and self, it will show in her characters as well.  The story will open up, and suddenly new possibilities will bloom.  Fladager believed in her evidence, believed in her case, and believed in her skills as a prosecutor. 

This is especially important in creative nonfiction, when authors often explore the dark and dusty corners of their own memories.   If we can all walk into the courtroom like Fladager, our writing will make the case.

Ryan, Harriet. (2004). Prosecutors in Scott Peterson Trial Turn Pitiful Start Ino Powerful Finale. Court TV..  Available: http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/100604_ctv.html

When you start thinking about the evidence that adds up to your life, you may believe that each piece - every memory, every object, every scar - is easily identified and contextualized.  That the meanings and implications are clear.  But even the most intimate experiences, the ones that leave traces on our skin and in our brains, can trick us.  Even the most indelible impressions can shape-shift or fade.  What seems obvious one year may feel ridiculous the next. 

Even the hardest evidence can be called into question:

For generations, and until DNA came along, fingerprint evidence has been touted as the ultimate forensic tool. So unique and special are our fingerprints that DNA itself is often described as a "genetic fingerprint." And that essential truth remains. Done correctly, fingerprint analysis can be a powerful forensic tool of identification. The problem is that there aren't universal standards for what "done correctly" means ... This absence of basic uniform standards is the dirty little secret of Mayfield's fingerprint problem.

Fingerprint matches are made on the basis of what's known as "points of comparison," as a quick look at your thumb will demonstrate. What you will see are the friction ridges that comprise your unique fingerprint. The friction ridges whirl and spit, creating unique patterns that ultimately become the biometric data every burglar loves to hate. Comparing prints is a matter of looking for places where the ridges join or split—something that can be compared between prints. These points of comparison are used to both exclude prints (prove they are not the same) and to match prints. The problem is this: Print examiners and even the computers that do the preliminary scans don't actually match the entire print. In deciding if a print matches they almost always decide on the basis of a partial analysis.  (Feige, 2004)

If a fingerprint is this elusive - this complicated and dangerous - then our memories (and memoirs) hold a potential energy far more lethal than we can imagine.  This is why we need to play both sides of the system - prosecution and defense.  We need to call our own cases into question, if we are ever to find the truth.

Feige, David. (2004). Printing Problems: The Inexact Science of Fingerprint Analysis. Slate.  Available: http://slate.msn.com/id/2101379/