Skip to main content

In Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, what is made clear during Mayella Ewell's testimony?

In Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, Mayella Ewell's testimony in court is found in chapter 18. Based on Mayella's performance on the witness stand, it becomes clear that she is a melodramatic, uneducated, socially ignorant, and abused liar. Most importantly, though, because of Tom Robinson's crippled left arm, there is no way that he could have blackened her right eye. For example, after Mayella claims that Tom blackened her right eye, Atticus has Tom stand up to show her and the courtroom that his left arm is crippled. Scout describes this revelatory moment in the following passage:



"Tom Robinson's powerful shoulders rippled under his thin shirt. He rose to his feet and stood with his right hand on the back of his chair. He looked oddly off balance, but it was not from the way he was standing. His left arm was fully twelve inches shorter than his right, and hung dead at his side. It ended in a small shriveled hand, and from as far away as the balcony I could see that it was no use to him" (186).



Tom's crippled arm is a revelation to Scout and Jem, as well as to the reader, but not to Mayella. What becomes clear to the children and the reader is that if Tom Robinson is physically unable to hit someone with his left arm, then Mayella could not have sustained an injury on the right side of her face; therefore, what Mayella claims to be true is a lie. And if Mayella is lying about how her eye was blackened, then she is most likely lying about being raped as well. Furthermore, during Bob Ewell's testimony, Atticus proves that Bob is left-handed by asking him to write his name down on paper in front of everyone. An educated member of the jury should be able to deduce that the physical evidence proves Tom could not have hit Mayella with his left hand, but her father certainly could have.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.