Unfortunately, the idea of confirmation as verification and validation of what happens causes emptiness in relation to what happens. Within this idea, it is not enough to happen; it is necessary to prove what happens; it is necessary to discover authorship. The dissatisfaction with evidence is a commitment to causality and to guarantees and orders extrinsic to what happened.

In pragmatic visions, conscious of utilities and common sense, it is always possible to explain, it is always possible to claim that "it is nothing like what you think, I can explain". In some situations, saying that "appearances can be deceiving" may just be being used as a justification. These disrespects and additions to evidence are a way of denying it through transformation.

When is what you see what you see? What one sees is what one sees when one perceives what is evidenced. And when what is seen is not what is seen? This happens when extra data are added to what is perceived, whether they originate in memory, fears and desires, or expectations. These extra data are all responsible for the distortions, and so we don't know if what is happening, is happening.

To find the cherished Chinese porcelain broken is also to find the possibility of checking the breakage. Broken porcelain is such an unsatisfying and frustrating encounter that automatically the frustration is displaced to know how it broke, who broke it, when it broke. Questions that neither clarify nor change the situation - which is the fact that it is broken - only allow checks on the event. The broken porcelain is the fact and transforming it into the need for flagrant and then seeking its causes creates authors, creates crime, errors, guilt and transforms the fact - broken porcelain - into an index, motive or objective of battles to be won, compensation to be received.

These attitudes occur frequently, hence the current idea that if there is no flagrant, there is no crime, as much as flagrant, error, events have authors and it can be a crime. This is so determinant for behaviours that it is already established as a way of denying events: if there is no flagrante, there is no crime. It may be the case that the vase fell by chance, nobody knocked it over; the wind was strong, it broke. Fall is also a fortuitous variable. The difference between chance, fortuitous and necessary starts to establish the criteria of what happens, concluding that there is no crime because there is no perpetrator and consequent flagrant.

Many people think that avoiding the flagrant makes events change. This attitude is disconnected and absurd, but it even exists in relation to the obvious things in personal and group life. In this way, we find people who say they are illiterate because they are lazy to study, rich because of the grace of God, poor because they don't have a diploma, because they didn't study. These are self-referential explanations that deny the relational structures, that disregard the problems of accumulation of wealth by the few, of insufficient resources and impoverishment - the facts - transforming situational flagrant into narratives that distort what happened.

There is no way to be a trout fisherman in the desert of Tunisia. To think that there is only crime when there is flagrant is to encourage the denial of evidence. To see the before and to see the after are fundamental, however, one can never deny the evidence of the now, and when one does this one seeks to deny responsibilities, even guilt. This change of attitude creates implications, one of which is the emphasis on the search for causes expressed by flagrant and errors.

Flagrant is the validation of what occurred, which necessarily creates another evidence. In this sense, flagrant cannot be understood as cause and explanation of what occurs, that is, detecting the flagrant proves nothing, it only establishes clarifying evidences of the continuity of what occurred. To dedicate oneself to continuity is enlightening because it brings evidence established in the same context of what happened, while to imagine the fact as resulting from random causes to its contextual structures causes dispersion and/or discontinuous agglutinations. The death - the fact - does not cease to exist, and it is not necessary to catch its author to validate it, because nothing changes in relation to what happened - someone dead. The phenomena exist independently of being included in conceptual networks that explain them. The observation or verification of them is only a wrapping that changes nothing in its configuration as evidence, but that is transformed into other evidences depending on their structuring contexts, such as flagrant and crimes, for example.