The truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter CuriousInIL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CuriousInIL

Guest
When one takes an oath to testify (in the US at least), that oath often is a promise “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

I get how something can be the truth but not the whole truth. But, the last part of the oath seems redundant to me.

Can anyone provide an example of a statement that would be considered “the truth” but somehow violates the “nothing but the truth” part of the oath? Or are those phrases just redundant of each other and both included for emphasis or something?
 
CuriousInIL said:
Can anyone provide an example of a statement that would be considered “the truth” but somehow violates the “nothing but the truth” part of the oath? Or are those phrases just redundant of each other and both included for emphasis or something?
Click to expand...
“I saw John sneak into a motel room with a woman (true).”
omitted from the whole truth: the woman is his wife.
untruth contained in my statement: the word “sneaking” he was merely entering the room.
 
Son gets traffic ticket on the way home from school.

“Anything happen today, son?” asks dad.

“Nothing to write home about…haha” says son.

“So, what’d you do after school?”

“Just drove home”
 
CuriousInIL said:
When one takes an oath to testify (in the US at least), that oath often is a promise “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

I get how something can be the truth but not the whole truth. But, the last part of the oath seems redundant to me.

Can anyone provide an example of a statement that would be considered “the truth” but somehow violates the “nothing but the truth” part of the oath? Or are those phrases just redundant of each other and both included for emphasis or something?
Click to expand...
The way I interpret it is that there’s the truth, what actually happened. This is what you are swearing to tell.

By swearing to tell the “whole truth”, you are swearing that you will not leave anything out.

By swearing to tell “nothing but the truth”, you are swearing that you will not add anything in.

Does that make sense?
 
nothing but the truth is generally said as a reminder that opinions are not truth… they may be true but they are not truth. Here are just a couple of examples:

That boy will never amount to anything… He may not but at that time it is an opinion (future)

The clerk said, “Can I help you?” in a way that really meant, “Leave me alone” (presumption of knowledge)
 
puzzleannie said:
“I saw John sneak into a motel room with a woman (true).”
omitted from the whole truth: the woman is his wife.
untruth contained in my statement: the word “sneaking” he was merely entering the room.
Click to expand...
Well, sneaking is either true or not. A statement cannot both be true and contain an untruth.
 
Joe_5859 said:
The way I interpret it is that there’s the truth, what actually happened. This is what you are swearing to tell.

By swearing to tell the “whole truth”, you are swearing that you will not leave anything out.

By swearing to tell “nothing but the truth”, you are swearing that you will not add anything in.

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
I have heard that sort of thing before and it makes sense to a degree. But, on the “nothing but the truth” point, if what is added in is true then its “the truth.” If what is added is not true, then it is not “the truth.” So “the truth” and “nothing but the truth” still seem redundant to me.
 
Newbie2 said:
Son gets traffic ticket on the way home from school.
Click to expand...
“Anything happen today, son?” asks dad.

“Nothing to write home about…haha” says son.

“So, what’d you do after school?”

“Just drove home”
To me, this is a comparison of “the truth” and “the whole truth,” which I get. If it is meant to compare “the truth” and “nothing but the truth” I don’t get how it addresses that.
 
Nothing but the truth tries to exclude opinion or thats how I understand it.

Such as:

He walked into the Building wearing the ugliest hat ever.

The hat is only ugly to that one person.
Its not a truth or a lie. So you should exclude it from you testimony.
 
Polaris said:
Nothing but the truth tries to exclude opinion or thats how I understand it.

Such as:

He walked into the Building wearing the ugliest hat ever.

The hat is only ugly to that one person.
Its not a truth or a lie. So you should exclude it from you testimony.
Click to expand...
I do not understand that at all. If it is my opinion that a hat is ugly then if I say it is ugly that is the truth and if I say the opposite it is a lie. An opinion does not negate truth.
 
Say I saw John walk into a room carrying a knife.

I might say that I saw him walk into the room, leaving out that he was carrying a knife. That’s not “the whole truth.”

I might say I saw him going into the room with a knife and saying “I’m going to kill her.” I’ve told “the whole truth,” but I’ve added a fiction, and thus am not telling “nothing but the truth.”

Does that help?

Ruthie, reader and watcher of many “Perry Mason” stories
 
CuriousInIL said:
I do not understand that at all. If it is my opinion that a hat is ugly then if I say it is ugly that is the truth and if I say the opposite it is a lie. An opinion does not negate truth.
Click to expand...
Just to address this point - in your example it’s fine because ‘ugly’ IS a subjective quality, subjectively determined. In that case your opinion is the truth.

There are other cases where your opinion either isn’t truth or is contrary to truth, where truth is objective and your opinion ain’t it. If you present ThAT sort of opinion as being truth then you aren’t telling ‘nothing but the truth’.

Example - it is your opinion that the man who entered his wife’s room with a knife wanted to kill her. If you say in court ‘he wanted to kill her’ as though THAT were fact when it is merely your opinion, that ain’t truth.

Getting back to the wording of the oath - oaths and ceremonies (especially older forms like this one is) often use flowery language and often repeat the main points to impress their solemnity and binding nature upon everyone.

Example - at a wedding the celebrant might use the term ‘lawful wedded wife/husband’ - ‘wedded wife/husband’ is a redundancy, your spouse can’t be anything other than wedded to you. But it sounds good and is more solemn and impressive, so it’s the commonly used phrase.
 
Legally it amounts to the fact that you are stating only objective facts and you promise not to state those facts with any personal conclusions or overtones. The latter are not the truth, but opinions. While opinion evidence is allowed, it has its own very specific rules of admissibility.
 
CuriousInIL said:
I do not understand that at all. If it is my opinion that a hat is ugly then if I say it is ugly that is the truth and if I say the opposite it is a lie. An opinion does not negate truth.
Click to expand...
An opinion is subjective truth. It may or may not be objective truth, therefore we clearly define which is which. There are entirely differerent rules for the admissibility of opinion testimony. Much of it is excluded.
 
Ruthie said:
Say I saw John walk into a room carrying a knife.

I might say that I saw him walk into the room, leaving out that he was carrying a knife. That’s not “the whole truth.”

I might say I saw him going into the room with a knife and saying “I’m going to kill her.” I’ve told “the whole truth,” but I’ve added a fiction, and thus am not telling “nothing but the truth.”

Does that help?

Ruthie, reader and watcher of many “Perry Mason” stories
Click to expand...
You are not telling “nothing but the truth” and you are not telling “the truth.”

Again, once one adds something other than the truth to the truth, it is no longer the truth.

So, it appears “the truth” and “nothing but the truth” are redundant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top