Reading
What Actually Happened?
This story is trivial, but puzzling. I never did know what happened in that little church one Florida night.
I am telling the truth as well as I can after a quarter of a century. Time distorts things. Half-remembered, rather dry and totally unconnected facts often rearrange themselves into an absorbing, complete and absolutely inaccurate story. Many have said they were going to tell the truth and then unintentionally told lies instead.
My weapon against tricks of time is the rule for good newspaper reporters everywhere. What I personally knew or experienced can be stated as fact, but everything else must clearly be something that is assumed or reported.
If you want more, I will tell it. The names of the town and of the newspaper I worked for would be useful. Who knows? In old police records and newspaper archives you may discover the truth that I never found. I have already said that I would help you.
Now I will set the scene. Back then the place still had a small-town atmosphere. Crime rates were low and life was easy-going. That's why we can assume that the police officer approaching the church late that night expected an explanation, not a confrontation or a mystery. That light in the little church was not usually left on, but someone could have forgotten it. Or perhaps someone was working very late.
We can also safely assume that the night was one of the usual mild Florida nights, with breezes rustling the palms and small waves gently lapping against the seawall in the nearby park on the bay. Perhaps it seemed normal when the policeman saw a young man through the glass door of the church. The young man was leafing through the music on the church organ.
The policeman said that he had tapped on the door. The young man had raised his head and had walked toward the door. The policeman had had the impression that the young man had intended to open the door. Then suddenly the light in the church had gone out. After he had waited long enough for the light to reappear or for the young man to reach the door, the policeman had called for help. No one had been seen leaving the church. (Take my word for it – ways to exit that church were limited.) Church officials had come and had helped to search the church. They had found all doors locked. They had discovered nothing missing, displaced or disturbed. No keys had been lost.
A basement exit or tunnel? The land there is a mere meter above sea level. There never could have been such an exit, just as there never could have been a young man in the church. And yet a reliable police officer said he had seen this young man.
No public explanation was ever given. Perhaps somebody's nephew or cousin gave the church pastor or city police chief a private, red-faced apology about a borrowed key and a thoughtless late night visit. That is possible, perhaps even plausible, but it is not proven. We have no right to assume it. Besides, how could he have left the church?
If you find an explanation, I will be happy to hear it. Of course, my brother may be right. He told me recently you didn't have to have an explanation for everything.
Questions
Choose the correct explanations…
- The article says "Many have said they were going to tell the truth." Why?
- Why do the main verbs in the seventh paragraph, which tells about the policeman at the church, use had plus the past participle?
- The article says there was little crime and life was pleasant. Who tells us so?
- The brother said it is not always necessary to have an explanation, or, in direct speech:
- The article says all doors were locked. This information comes from:
Are the following statements correct?
1. The narrator thinks people may not lie deliberately about the past.
2. The narrator knows that the church had few doors.
3. The narrator expects the reader to find an explanation.
4. The policeman reported that the man came toward him.
5. We know the policeman went to the church to stop a crime.