When I first saw the Ashley Baker statement I didn’t immediately jump to the conclusion that it was fabricated evidence, even though I knew that Sephora was not “the driver”, and even though I knew that there had been a lot of perjury to the effect that she was.
I knew, in other words, that the supposed declaration by Theriault that “Sephora was the driver” was false, but that did not make the statement in which that declaration was contained – the Ashley Baker statement itself – a fabrication. Maybe Theriault did say it. Maybe Ashley Baker did overhear it. That’s what the statement says on its face, after all.
Unless and until you become open to the possibility that you are swimming in a sea of falsehoods, the facial declarations of a written document retain a power over your mind that they shouldn’t have in that situation. The mind recoils at the idea that what it perceives through the written word is not intended to inform or reveal to it, but rather to deceive it.
Thus my first reaction to seeing the Ashley Baker statement was not that it had been fabricated, but I was vaguely troubled by it, beyond just the falsehood of the declaration that “Sephora was the driver”. It was a gut feeling. But by the time I saw it for the first time, in the fall of 2006, I was more used to being lied to and it wasn’t as paralyzing. It was more…interesting.
Still, it gives you pause. I remember carrying a copy around with me for a few days and looking at it periodically, parsing everything about it to see if I could get a more tangible sense of why it bothered me.