Those of us who follow American politics to any degree will have noted the extraordinary testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson to the January 6th Committee in Washington DC last Tuesday. What this 25-year-old assistant had to say to the Committee was instantly compelling. No doubt those who arranged for her to give evidence knew that her grasp of detail, her obvious integrity and her position right at the heart of the action on the fateful day of the attempted coup, would make her a star witness. What raised her testimony to become decisive and history changing was the assured way that she answered the questions that were put to her. There was no point where she hesitated about what she had seen. She had been physically present at some events about which she gave testimony, or she was able to recall precisely what others said they had seen. To call her a star witness is probably an understatement. She was a superstar witness in that her testimony cannot easily be destroyed by those who prefer propaganda to replace the recording of historical events. There was nothing for her personally in giving this testimony, except perhaps a place in the American history books
The performance by Cassidy on Tuesday has led me to reflect on what we expect from witnesses either in a legal trial, or from an investigation such as those conducted by the Church of England safeguarding processes. I will have, at the back of my mind, the Cassidy performance as I try to list some of the qualities that we expect to find from witnesses, whether or not they are under oath in a court of law. As I write this, I am aware that there are presumably formal guides for barristers and other legal personnel who work within a trial or inquiry setting. The questions I raise here are strictly from a lay perspective but there is one basic question that we all must ask. How do we determine that the person speaking to us is telling the truth?
For any person to tell a lie or untruth of any kind, there must be some reason for doing so. The person we are speaking to may have a vested interest in holding on to a false set of facts, because lies appear to be advantageous to them or to an institution like the Church. ‘Alternative facts’ may help to preserve the reputations of senior leaders in these organisations in the short term. But over a period the truth has a habit of coming out to heap shame and embarrassment on reputations. History is harsh to those who have attempted to hang on to power at the expense of integrity and honesty. Reputations of all, living or dead, do matter. For the Church, the honesty and holiness of past members is able to feed the integrity of the whole institution long after they have gone. The opposite is also true. Immoral behaviour or dishonesty, when it is exposed, even years after the deaths of those guilty, are still able to do damage both individuals and organisations. Telling a lie may appear to provide some advantage for someone but over the long-term it serves little purpose.
Whenever an investigator is searching for the true version of factual events, he/she will be aware of any potential motive for producing a false narrative. If there appears to be an incentive to lie or cover up facts, the questioner will want to be allowed to ask further questions. The narrative that is given may of course be the true version but there is nothing wrong in the further questioning as a method of confirming or raising doubts over what has been presented. The cross-examination of witnesses is an age-old part of the legal process alongside the taking of an oath by witnesses in a court of law. Everyone, including children, knows that it is quite hard not only to tell a lie, but to sustain that lie when questioned by a skilled investigator. Lawyers at criminal trials and the police have plenty of experience at sorting out truth from lies. Sustaining a falsehood when further questions may be asked about the setting or context of that event is quite hard to do. For a start you need an extremely good memory to ensure that you never swerve from the version of events that you first told.
If an individual in a trial or an inquiry is thought to be relaying a false version of events, the questioner may need to have a working hypothesis as to why and how this could be. Among the reasons that might come to mind are the presence of shameful episodes in a witness’ life that need to be shut out from memory. More commonly we might expect to find, behind an individual giving possible false evidence, connections to another person or group. These external influencing forces may well play a role in encouraging someone to align themselves with as false version of the facts. The power of a parent to compel a child to follow a particular false account of an event is often decisive. Thirdly we have, potentially, a wide range of psychological benefits to be obtained by telling a lie. The self-delusionary aspects of a narcissistic disorder come to mind. Then there is the avoiding of a raw fear of the truth coming to light and what it might do to the witness and those around him/her. All these potential causes for telling a lie will normally be grasped and form part of the background awareness of the suitably trained investigator. In summary, the investigator will look at the relationships, the networks and the ‘political’ factors that surround a witness which may impinge on their ability to tell the plain unadorned truth. Once again, we are not suggesting that these other factors make lies inevitable. It is, rather, that lies or false versions of events are less unexpected when there are emotional factors or powerful networks of influence impinging on a witness. These may alter both the perception and the recalling of events from the past.
To return to the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony, the power of her words was greatly enhanced by the fact she had apparently nothing to gain from telling any version of the events on January 6th except the true one. Someone might possibly accuse her of being in league with Trump’s enemies to manipulate the facts, but it would be extremely difficult for anyone to come up with a false version of events which was not contradicted on points of detail by other witness statements. It is the sheer amount of detail, something Cassidy seemed skilled at recalling, that makes her testimony so important. People sometimes become confused by details in giving testimony and this is especially true of older people. While there is always this potential for confusion, It should not be difficult, in practice, for a questioner to tell the difference between the partial memory loss of an older person and the deliberate attempt to cover-up the truth in the interest of relaying a false narrative.
While, as we noted, Cassidy had nothing to gain from giving her account, she had everything to gain by keeping silent. The political forces in the States have become polarised and potentially violent. If, as is being claimed in the newspapers today, her testimony forms the obituary to Trump’s political career, then she has good reason to be afraid of the anger of Trump and his supporters. We all wish her well and hope that her life will eventually be allowed to return to normal.
The power of a witness to make a statement so that justice can be established is a proper part of process in every legal or quasi-legal setting. We need to find this in the Church’s safeguarding processes. In every case it is also important for there to be skilful questioning and scrutiny of the one making a testimony. Problems arise when testimony is lodged, and no proper scrutiny takes place. So often in church settings no one seems to make it their business to forensically examine whether a testimony is true or even plausible. The evidence of a complainant is sometimes taken to be the only possible version of truth. Perhaps what we are witnessing here is the Church trying to work off a compensatory debt to survivors. For decades, even centuries, the testimony of the weak, the very young and the powerless was ignored. It was the words of those in power that had weight, and these normally prevailed in church circles as in many others. When this institutional bias in favour of the powerful finally became exposed, the Church as well as society had a lot of catching up to do. The pendulum then swung violently in the opposite direction. Now the witness of the weak and abused has become privileged to the extent that in some cases I hear about, not even common-sense questions are asked of child or vulnerable adult witnesses. Recently Martin Sewell has been asking questions of the controversial Independent Safeguarding Board and the way that, in a recent report, it asserts that ‘complainants can expect to be believed’. Such a statement is ‘extraordinary to find in such a body’. A declaration like this, along with the mantra we heard in the Kenneth case ‘the voice of the child must be heard and believed’, is more appropriate to a counselling service than in a body which is expected to involve itself with issues of justice and truth. A more appropriate statement, the one produced by the Cleveland Report in 1989, is ‘always listen to the complainant and take what they say seriously’. This principle would have been usefully applied in the Kenneth case. Allowing an automatic acceptance of a child’s testimony to pass unquestioned in safeguarding cases, has led to an untidy and inconclusive ending to the affair. The Carl Beech saga is also a warning of what can happen when there is an automatic acceptance of a complainant’s testimony.
Believing a testimony without any scrutiny of its plausibility can lead to thoroughly bad process in church legal protocols. While we want to move away anything resembling the old aggressive strategies of defence lawyers in rape trials, we do still need independent scrutiny of accusations that are made in church led processes. It does not take a top QC to establish the plausibility of a witness in a CDM process. It does take a person who combines some basic legal training, an understanding of independence combined with a basic grasp of human nature. Such a person, perhaps designated as a plausibility investigator, does not need years of experience to hone their skills. We need these kinds of independent voices in the church’s legal protocols since, in some cases, compassionate common-sense seems to have left the room. If the CDM process is not reformed speedily, many young clergy are going to feel thoroughly insecure. The system in which they work has become untrustworthy. I am hearing from various directions, not only cases of injustice, but also a sense of deepening insecurity, even fear among clergy, at the way the church’s legal structures are operated.