"A Thin Blue Lie" : An Analytical Paper on Errol Morris' Documentary, "The Thin Blue Line"

The Thin Blue Line is a devastating investigation of the senseless conviction of an innocent man. Using narrative fragments and dramatic reenactments, the film gradually recreates the trial and conviction of Randall Adams for the murder of Officer Robert Woods. Ultimately, the film narrows its focus on the investigation, eventually exposing David Harris as its true subject.

Harris, the only true eyewitness of the case, provides the initial testimony that inspires the other eyewitnesses’ accusations. His denial is responsible for the Dallas police department’s quest to convict Adams. To law officials and interrogators, he subtly orchestrates the recreation of a crime to which he claims no involvement. In addition to Harris, Morris interviews the key participants. Building off of Harris’ allegations, the other’s testimonies create a tangled web of evidence that snares Randall Adams in the crime. Each interviewee’s perception of the tragic murder questions the authority of another person’s testimony. This excess of uncertainty emphasizes the film’s focus on truth and its ability to elude those who search for it.

The range of interviews in The Thin Blue Line gives each member’s testimony a certain level of authority in the story of Officer Wood’s murder. The term story here has a crucial significance because it implies that each testimony is a subjective, imaginative reconstruction of the murder. No one remembers an objective truth of what happened on the night of the shooting; rather, the involved parties speculate, offering narratives based on what little evidence was found and logged. The film suggests that in their remembering, and subsequent self-protecting, lies become truths and guesswork is transformed into a recollection of the night’s events. As one lie builds upon another, the case against Adams becomes more tangled. The series of untruths responsible for Adams’ conviction are nodes that sprout from one man’s deposition. A deceptive sociopath, David Harris uses the lack of evidence to create an opportunity for himself. The young and charismatic Harris accuses Adams, helping investigators and prosecutors to indict Adams. The film focuses on this process, as the “thin blue line” becomes a “thin blue lie”.

In one sequence, Morris spotlights Harris’ lies and status as a stereotypical “troubled youth.” This exploration into Harris’ behavior highlights the police officers’ senseless compliance with the lie Harris initially constructs. The sequence begins with a close-up of a map of Texas. A large dot marked “Vidor” sits at the center of the frame, indicating a transition in location. This move from Dallas to Vidor also emphasizes a change in jurisdiction. All the facts that spark the intense investigation of the case are discovered in Vidor-- the stolen car, the stolen gun, and the boy who stole them. Yet Dallas police still choose to believe in Harris’ testimony that Adams is guilty. It seems the crucial evidence discovered by Vidor police officer Sam Kittrell goes unnoticed by the Dallas police department.

The camera’s commute across the map into different jurisdictions reveals where the truths and lies of the case originate. All of the appropriate clues to convict Harris are in Vidor. Yet Dallas officers, who have nothing but theories, still choose to build a case against Adams.

The next shot begins Officer Kittrell’s interview. Seated in the center of the frame, Kittrell is surrounded by his office clutter, paperwork on shelves and desks, implying that he is in an office at a local precinct. There is an honest authority in his presence that contrasts with the theatrical clout of the preceding Dallas investigators. His voice is casual and distinct and, unlike the other interviewees, Kittrell avoids any unnecessary elaboration on the truth.

As Kittrell states that the connection between Harris and Dallas began with the report of a local neighbor’s stolen car, a photograph of the vehicle reveals its true make, model, color, and license plate number: a Mercury Comet, not a Chevrolet Vega, as the Dallas police believed. At this point in the film, the authority of the police investigators in Dallas is challenged, as Kittrell becomes the authority in the case.

Officer Kittrell recalls that Harris was found with the car and pursued on-foot after abandoning the vehicle. The description of the chase is accompanied by a close-up of the corresponding incident report. The words “reported runaway” appear in black lettering at the center of the frame, accentuating Harris’ role as a fugitive on the run. Morris then cuts back to the interview with Kittrell, who explains the department started getting “little bits of information that David had been involved in a shooting in Dallas of a police officer.” The camera presents another close-up of the incident report. The form reads, “Name and address of suspect”. Beneath it, “David Harris W/M 16 yrs.” is ominously typed in large black letters. These close-ups of Harris’ incident reports portray him as a criminal who is under age. The use of this police document accentuates that Harris is not an adolescent who should be “given [yet] another chance”.

A brief series of interviews with three of Harris’ friends reveal that when Harris had returned to Vidor he began bragging about how he shot a Dallas cop. Their testimonies capture Harris as a sociopath, providing more behavioral evidence against him. The sequence then returns to the interview with Officer Kittrell. His intimate knowledge of Harris’ background leads the viewers to invest in his testimony. When asked if he had been in Dallas or been involved in any sort of shooting, Harris denied both. But as Kittrell illuminates, “He denied everything to the end, which was fairly consistent with David. Even if he had some involvement, his first way that he always treats you is to deny. Then, if he felt as though you really knew he did it, then he would be truthful with you.” This priceless insight into Harris’ behavior during interrogations is still an afterthought for the Dallas police department. Despite this knowledge, Harris’ denial of the murder of Officer Woods is still received by the Dallas police department without further question.

The illusion of Adams’ guilt is based in Harris’ denial. When Morris interviews the officers involved in the initial investigation, one of them states, “When we started putting facts together on how much information we actually had…we found out we didn’t have anything.” Adamant about his lack of involvement in the crime, Harris easily convinced local law enforcement that Adams was the perpetrator. Having no other evidence, the department blindly invested in this information, ironically relinquishing their authority in the case to Harris, the true culprit.