In chapter 30, Is Heck Tate right to spare Boo publicity of an inquest? Give reasons for the answer.
I also have a question about the first part of the question which i have already answered. It is about Tate insisting Ewell's death was self-inflicted, I said it was self-inflicted, but in what ways is this true?
1 Answer | Add Yours
Bob Ewell attacked the children with a knife. Boo Radley rescued them with a knife of his own; Boo stabbed Bob Ewell to save Scout. Heck Tate knows that the town would make Boo out to be some sort of a hero for defending the children, and that would ruin Boo's quiet way of life. There is no doubt that he would have been acquitted because he was saving the lives of the Finch children; no jury would convict him. Especially since Bob Ewell had factored so prominantly in the Tom Robinson trial. People in town know Ewell, and it is probable that many of them knew without a doubt that it was Bob who inflicted the wounds on his daughter, Mayella. However, no one in town had the guts to take a black man's word against a white man's, no matter how heinous the crime. In Bob's death, it is probable that most would believe that Ewell got what was coming to him, especially since he was in the process of attacking Jem and Scout. Therefore, Heck Tate decides that it is in Boo's best interest to insist that Bob Ewell fell on his own knife.
Join to answer this question
Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.Join eNotes