The Truth in Reality vs The Truth in Court

Just like what it was said in the Will Power Hong Kong drama.. often there lies a different version of what we call the truth in reality and the truth revealed in Court. 

Question how can there be two versions of the truth when it ought to be just one version? Isn't that what it meant by the term 'truth'? Answer - No. Both versions of the 'truth' can actually exist concurrently. 

The truth in reality probably comes from what you saw with your eyes or what you have heard or just a matter of gut feeling. But the truth revealed in court comes in two possibilities. 

First possibility - truth revealed as per the evidence tendered in Court. 

Second possibility - truth revealed in accordance to the will of the interested parties in court.

Everything is possible. Trust me. Everything is really possible.You can hold a red underwear in Court and get everyone to agree with you that its a blue handkerchief. How hard is that? All you need is probably a mixture of skills... luck.. power.. and/or money. i.e. a good lawyer. 

What makes a good lawyer? According to will power drama... its when you win all your cases. True isn't it? when a client is seeking for a good lawyer, what they are actually seeking for is a lawyer who can guarantee a win case. I have lost count how many occasions when my client will turn to me and ask me whether my firm can give a guarantee. Guarantee? Std answer.. if you're looking for one then we are not the one. Guarantee comes with an exorbitant price. 

No one can guarantee anything in today's world. Anyone dare to guarantee the assessment rates in KL won't increase in January 2014? Anyone dare to guarantee even after implementing GST our country's finance will overcome the risk of bankruptcy and back to prosperity chart? We can't even guarantee whether we will get fired by boss, get dumped by our lover or disown by our family tomorrow. At least I can't. I can't even guarantee whether I will stay sane after 10 years in practice later.

For those who never gets their day in court... don't be disappointed with the 'truth' revealed in court. Everyone has a duty and/or role to play. Just imagine the judge is an artist.. the 'truth' is a plain white paper.. and the prosecution is the supplier of all the other tools i.e. painting colours and etc. Defence lawyers are merely seller of the paintings.

To create the complete picture, you will need the supplier to provide all the necessary tools. without them, the artist can only draw and create limited effects. In the eyes of the artist, that would have been the complete perfect picture which could be drawn by any artist alive with limited tools.

As for seller, their roles are interesting. If they want to sell a painting to a potential customer, they will interpret the paintings and give it a meaning and say anything under the sky just to sell it at a higher price. This applies vice versa. If a seller is out to destroy the value of a painting in order to buy it at nominal value from a painter, they are capable of doing so too.

So when a painting is only sold to a seller for RM1, who to blame? The artist? The supplier? or the unethical seller?