First, before laying out the argument for this conceptual idea, it maybe advantageous to described to the readers, what is a good lie. Some may proposed that there is no such thing as a good lie since a lie cannot be look upon as being good. Some would even go to the extent to say that it’s an oxymoron to say that there are good lies. Well, in that sense that one can gain a point for taking that position, because common sense tells us if a lie is viewed by society as being bad than it create fragment in the mind to say that a lie can be good.

Now, suppose we say that a well orchestrate lie must have some truth in it to create fragment in the imagination. In this case, the concept is accepted, because there is no conflict of ideas. Meanwhile, in our minds we foresee the well orchestrated lie as a good lie. This happen because we live in a society that sometime associate negative adjectives to identify goodness. We do not say this girl look good, instead we say this girl is bad, the professor is anal or that's a good lie. It is with this understanding that the term “good lie" shouldn't really be viewed as an oxymoron. Now with that said, within the paragraph below, you will see how a good lie can be orchestrated.

There are no good lies without some truth in it. Which means in order for a lie to be properly orchestrate, that lie must be led by some truth. The truth and the lie can converge to hide the interest by creating a diversion or the lie can be preceded by partial truth to create a false perception of the truth. In some cases, it is the lie that is forwardly presented with some partial truth supporting the lie as a mean to confuse the mind. Therefore, we must conclude that the lie is the protector of the truth which if reviled, can expose the interest.

However, what I’ve figured from the above theory is that if all truths are relative to prior knowledge, so are all lies. Since there are no good lies without some truth in it, therefore all good lie must relate to prior knowledge. For example if Joe who is walking by happens to picked a mango that is beneath the mango tree, decides to lie abut it. This guy Joe can say that he found this mango beneath the mango tree when in fact it was given to him by his cousin Tom. In this example, there can be two facts present and one lie, its all depends on how we formulate the scenario.

Fact one, let us consider that Joe did take the route where the mango tree is situated, because that’s the only way he knows how to get to his home. Fact two, let us accept that its mango seasons, the mangoes are ready and they’re dropping like they is no tomorrow. And consider that this route Joe took is not a commercial route, so no one passes there often. Since there is no one picking these mangoes up on a regular, the chances are there will always be mangoes underneath the tree. If the mangoes that Joe took home were given to him for his Aunt Sonia by his cousin Tom, and they’re the same kind of mangoes, it would obviously be hard to prove that this mango did not come from the mango tree if Joe for example decides to eat one, and replace it from one found underneath the mango tree.

Even if we were to found out that Joe's cousin gave him three mangoes and he still got three when he got to his home, doesn’t mean he couldn’t have eating one on the way home, and replace it from the one he found underneath the mango tree. You can check his mouth to see if you noticed any mango's filaments, but if he clean up before he got home, you will be clueless.

What the above example meant to explain is that in order for a lie to have had merit, it must be back up by some truths; otherwise it’s not a good lie. What we have witnessed here is that even the lie sometime depends on prior knowledge to be effective. The prior knowledge in this lie is that its mango season and a mango tree does crosses Joe's path. It maybe irrelevant to know whether or not Joe really did eat a mango, as long as he brought home to his Aunt Sonia the same tree mangoes it doesn't matter.

Now, suppose that was money and Joe replace some of them with counterfeit, the fake money resemble so much the real thing that the Aunt assumed the fake ones for real money. In this example, isn't it true that there are some truths to this lie? Now, you understand - the fact that some of the fake money is real makes the lie easy to swallow. Then from this observation, we can say prior knowledge is the means to all measures, without the right interpretation of prior knowledge, all measures are potentially inaccurate. As we have noticed in the above example, the lie can be used to hide the truth in order to confuse our perception.

Because of that, we say since interests are not always reviled until the lie has been exposed, interest must be analyzed with facts in order for all lies to be eliminated. However, we should also remember that our judgments tend to depend on our ability to think and feel. We prefer to look for details and facts. Sometime what one perceived for being a fact, may not necessarily be fact. In this case the person's judgment is offset by his or her perception.

That is precisely what we have seen in the above example. The factual outcome in the above example is the fact that Joe came home with three mangoes which was given to him by his cousin Tom for his Aunt Sonia. We have no way of knowing if it’s the same mangoes that was given to him by his cousin Tom if we never witnessed him eating any of them. This is why we say from the above example, what we perceive as being fact may not be factual. Thus, our judgment has been offset by our perception. But if we were suspicious of a possible interest, it would have been beneficial to analyze the interest with facts, which in this case would call for this theory below.

Lying is not the enemy of the truth; it is by all means its protector. Truths and interests are companion, in cases where the interest is protected by the lie, the motive is undetectable, to reveal the motive, the interest must be reviled. As we acquire new information on an object, our perception of the object changes and subsequently changes how we judge the object. This is why it’s always important to associate the interest with facts so that we get a more accurate result, because if the interest is not rightfully detected, our judgments will be offset.

From this theory, to expose the interest, we may want to found out if Joe was hungry. It will serve us no purpose if we ask him, because he might lie to protect his interest from being exposed. The only possible result would be to investigate, found out if he ate anything before heading to his cousin house and after leaving the cousin. Even still that doesn’t tell us anything, because if he had money, it’s possible he could have purchased something to eat on the way, which would have given us less reason to assumed that he ate one of the mangoes on the way.

In this case, we must investigate if he had any money; because if he didn't have money, we would have more reason to predict that he may have ate a mango on the way. It maybe helpful to find out who his friends are, if he didn't have any money did any of his friends lends him money or does he have a bank account, if so did he take any money out. This would be a hard case to prove because even if he was starving with no money, it would still not be enough evidence to conclude that he may have ate a mango on the way.

To solve this case may encourage one to become a Perry Mason. Fellow’s Joe's trace, see if we can notice any mango skins on the route. If we happen to found any evidence, test it for DNA evidence. Wait a minute; if I remember correctly, DNA technology was not yet available in Perry Mason mystery cases. I guest we would have had to solve this case with modern technology.

What the above examples attempt to explain is that the interest is the driven force of the intent. There is no null intent. Whether the intent is good or bad, it must be driven by interest. It is only by exposing the interest that the truth can be exposed. Without exposing the interest, the lie can cloud the mind form the truth in a way that it makes the truth very difficult to revile.