"What happens when a narrative takes the place of reality?

I was never trying to argue this case with you, only trying to point out that there was a very compelling item that really should have settled this matter once and for all years ago (there actully was a couple of more big developments as well).

And like I mentioned before, I like Errol Morris because his brain processes information differently, it's just too bad he became involved in this case and when they showed him the final interview of Heleana Stoeckley it was clear he had never seen that video before and it knocked him way back on his heels. With that and the hair found in his wife's hand that MacDonald said was not his and the dismantling of the Deputy US Marshall's claims, were new pieces of additional evidence. But what really gets me is how the hell that Stoeckley interview didn't put all of his appeals to rest years ago. The documentary was never clear why that interview was not widely seen

As for Morris' quote it actually is an important one. For example, take the painting of Gen George Washington's crossing of the Delaware - that image is not real, but that "narrative" has become reality. Or take the famous photograph of the iron workers sitting on the iron beam having lunch in NY - the narrative of that photo, too, has become reality, when its true origin is much different (I can't recall the exact history, but the true story of it is different from what it indicates). And this is what Morris means by when the narrative becomes the reality. And I think his argument of what one "knows" and "thinks" is important, too, and too often is kind of missed a bit when it comes to the profound difference of the two.