To Kill a Mockingbird discussion

In Chapter 17 Mr. Ewell testified he looked through the window and saw Tom Robinson on top of his daughter. In Chapter 18 Mayella testifies her father asked her "who done it". Atticus seems to me too good of a lawyer to miss this contradiction - yet, he doesn't bring it up. Why?

Maybe Atticus saw it unnecessary to grasp at straws. If he called this out, Mr. Ewell would surely come up with some excuse like he saw Tom but didn't recognize who it was or something along those lines. Atticus already knew how he was going to prove that Bob was the guilty party so he must not have seen a need to pick at minor details that came up along the way.

Good catch though, I never noticed that.

Yeah, it could be that he already had a different strategy and Mr. Ewell's lies were apparent enough anyway, not requiring Atticus to deviate from his plan to point them out.

But then, I think I have to ask - why did Harper Lee bother with this contradiction? Unless it was by mistake, which I doubt since these plot parts are close and everything else seems so well done. The most reasonable explanation I can think of now, though I'm not satisfied by it, come from Scout as quoted from Chapter 17:

“Never, never, never, on cross-examination ask a witness a question you don't already know the answer to, was a tenet I absorbed with my baby-food.”

So, it might have been a way of showing Atticus doesn't ask questions regarding new information, but I think this contradiction would have been made more apparent if that was the case. Oh, well.

Interesting question. I think part of the answer could come towards the end of chapter 17:

"Then she burst into real tears. Her shoulders shook with angry sobs. She was as good as her word. She answered no more questions, even when Mr Gilmer tried to get her back on track."

This is a part of the narrative where Scout stops telling us precisely what was said and changes into summarising what happened. Any additional questions asked by Finch would presumably have happened at this time and Mayella would have refused to answer.

I think that's one of the differences between fiction and real life. In fiction we don't get to see everything that happens. In real life, especially in a court, the proceedings are sometimes written down word for word.

I agree. Also, in the case of fiction the events didn't really happen so any explanation will do - but we prefer a plausible one.

What I should like to know (insofar as it’s a meaningful question) is why Atticus didn’t ask to have Mayella examined by a doctor. If she were a virgin, that would have settled the whole thing.

I don't remember it by now, but I did try to ask Copilot the same question:
In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch is indeed a very skilled lawyer, and his decision not to highlight this contradiction immediately is quite deliberate.

Atticus's strategy is often about building a broader narrative rather than focusing on individual inconsistencies right away. By allowing the witnesses to present their stories fully, he gives the jury a chance to see the contradictions and implausibilities for themselves. This approach can be more powerful than directly pointing out every inconsistency, as it allows the jury to come to their own conclusions about the reliability of the witnesses.

Additionally, Atticus might be saving this point for his closing argument, where he can tie together all the inconsistencies and present a compelling case for Tom Robinson's innocence. This method can have a stronger impact, as it leaves the jury with a clear, cohesive argument to consider during their deliberations.

it didn't even mattered btw because that's the whole point of the story that as soon as the guy was labelled as a rapist his life was doomed because he was negro . Atticus knew beforehand that he can do everything but still won't b e able to save him

That's true. However, it may also be that she was not a virgin. I forget the exact quote, but when Mayella talks about them not having a mother, one of the conclusions you may come to is that Father may do "it" with her, as her mother may have been dead for a while, yet she has all of these really young siblings. If that is indeed the case, Mayella's Father may have taken her virginity after her mother died, and if he didn't do it somewhat recently(around the time Tom came to their house), then there may not be a way to prove that he did it. Either way, it wouldn't have mattered as they would have convicted Tom no matter what evidence was brought foreward.

this has always bothered me- it would seem that this conflicting testimony would raise the reasonable doubt necessary to earn an acquittal- it was no longer tom's word against the ewell's it was daughter's word against father's- but of course harper lee based much off this case on the scottsboro boys trial which made clear evidence and fact made no difference when it came to such a case- i've just reconciled this as atticus acknowledging the futility of catching a witness in a lie- his measure of victory was in how long it took the jury to convict