It is always interesting to hear descriptions of an event from more than one person, especially if it has some personal significance. Details from one may be completely overlooked by another, who finds other aspects more significant.
I remember sitting in on a disciplinary hearing some years ago, and realising to my horror that the accuser seemed to have a permanent dislike of the accused. I seemed to be the only one aware of this. Hearing a description of an event as prompted by the accuser, and from my own experience of the event I was wondering if we were describing the same event. Then the accused told a version, similar to mine, but with some details I was unaware of.
Thanks to the fact that my story and the accused’s stories were so similar, there was a decision not to take further action. Fortunately the accuser left shortly thereafter, but unfortunately for a ‘higher’ rank elsewhere; which I’m sure produced similar events where he protected himself with a ‘version’ close to the truth, but biased towards what he wanted as an outcome.
I ran into him elsewhere years later, still peddling himself as the answer to all, but I gather with a trail of nastiness left behind him.
Sometimes finding a believable reality when stories differ can take a long time. I was intrigued yesterday to see a film, where, when the truth finally dawns on you, the character accused has Alzheimer’s and can no longer recognise what has come to light.
I wondered how often the missing links in a story only come to light after it can no longer matter.
Osama Bin Laden is apparently dead. I wonder, what will ever come to light about him and events related to him, now that he has been killed.