Robertson's version of the story is his truth, created in language. The accounts of Judge Argyle by Robertson are extremely biased, thus he has created his own truth. Robertson discredits him His judgeship was a career consolation for the Tory MP he had tried several times to become, and a platform from which to inveigh against what he saw as the evils of the permissive society. Argyles old out of touch quality is established where he misunderstands right on as write on- Right on! Judge Argyle taking down the evidence longhand, looked up, puzzled. Write on but you had finished the interview? Not write on W R I T E, my lord but R I G H T on. It's a revolutionary expression. The composer also makes Argyle look out of touch culturally. Well pardon me, injected the judge. But is hair an article? Hair is a play, sighed John Mortimer wearily, it's been running on the West End for the last five years. The technique here is to discredit Argyle by poking fun at him and making him look stupid, as well as old fashioned. Hence, Robertson's biased account creates his own truth, as he makes the reader dislike Judge Argyle.
Robertson uses a theatrical metaphor to accuse Argyle of manipulating the audience by using body language as an actor might as if trained by Stamislavsky. If he regarded the evidence as irrelevant he would put his pen down with a clatter, in what was some sought of ritual dance. Judge Argyle however, tried to distort the truth by trying to influence the court and the jury by his tone of voice. Judge Argyle's views were unconsciously signalled to the jury though the tone of voice and body language, which did not show up on the transcript of the court of appeal. The composer uses a satirical comment on the judge-pronouncing sentence with the relief of a man making a bowel movement after weeks of constipation. Hence, Judge Argyle tried to create his own truth by distorting the evidence, by trying to influence his own conservative views onto the court.