Tompkins suggests that truth is in the eye of the beholder pretty much, leaving it all relative. I think her conclusion is a cop-out. Just because she couldn't find the truth does not mean that there wasn't one
When she says that "any one fact is perspectival doesn't change its factual nature in the slightest. It merely reiterates it. (688)" I have to disagree. If three people see a car accident happen, each from an alternate point of view, every account will likely be different. Fair enough, every person is giving "their truth" but just because it is true to them does not make it true. There is really only one thing that has happened, even if it cannot be completely reached. Every person will doubt what the other has said, because they saw their side with their own eyes. Their perspectives distort the truth, but the truth is still there. Every person distorts it in their own way.
Tompkins conclusion is relatively unclear to me, but I do believe that I disagree.