The Truth Will Out - Eventually

“A false friend and a shadow attend only while the sun shines.” Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late” Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)

---

Jane had set up a ‘False Allegation’ Facebook account along with this blog. It was never used but one night in late 2009, Jane accidentally sent a ‘friend request’ – I think that we can all relate to that situation. It provoked an odd reaction from Anne Callander to which Jane then responded. I intervened and asked Anne to discontinue and to leave Jane alone which then provoked this surprising response :

----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Callander To: False Allegation Sent: 05 January 2010 15:49 Subject: Anne Callander sent you a message on Facebook... Look through my “intrusion” so far and compare it to what you have written. It is you who started the intrusion by continually looking at my private profile and your false name coming up as a friend suggestion. You have forced me into what follows : As a Headteacher myself I know that the safeguarding and protection of a child is paramount, above all other concerns, and there are procedures that simply have to be followed. The outcome would have been so different and Jane would still be teaching today if she had accepted that she needed support during the difficult time she was having. Instead she chose a different route. The Jane I once knew would have taken the correct advice and accept the support offered from the start. She would NOT have ignored the advice from her union, her friends and the supportive network at county. She would NOT have followed the corrosive and destructive path that was advised by her partner whose first contact with her after the suspension was to tell her to “Shut up and don’t say any more“. None of this was reported at the hearing. I could have done had I chosen to, but I wanted to say as little as possible whilst still telling the TRUTH. This was the stance I had taken all along which I now know was “sitting on the fence”. I also took this attitude during the phonecalls that I received from Jane possibly giving the impression that I was agreeing with her by responding with “mmmm” and expressive “oh nos” and the like. I should have been more brave and admitted that I did have grave concerns about her behaviour over the years, and that I was now concerned that she was changing her story. She had already relayed the whole story to me on the car park was now telling me that she had “no idea what I’m being accused of”. If I am guilty of anything it is the dreadful weakness of being unable to confront her. I am guilty of not reinforcing my initial advice to listen to what her union advises and to take all the professional support she can. No doubt this is what led to Jane expecting me to lie for her at the hearing. However, there I had to draw the line. Jane DID admit to me that she had smacked the child. I could not lie about this. Friendship or no friendship I could not stick up for her and call the child a liar. And as a friend she should not have expected me to do so. I repeat. This did not need to happen. The outcome would have been very different if the correct advice was taken. Support could have been given officially and she would have been supported by her colleagues too if she could have admitted that her actions were due to the enormous pressure she was under. Jane chose this path herself. It is her OWN ACTIONS (on the ill advice from her partner) that have led to her betrayallife of hell”, not my actions. I hope Jane gets to read this and it is not kept from her by her partner who will know that all I am writing is the truth. I pity her and what has happened and I am very sad that she is not happy. But it wasn’t down to anything that I did.

“But it wasn’t down to anything that I did.” In point of fact, Jane’s fate had been entirely her fault !

---

UK Legal Services Advisory Group: Our analysis of the above narrative concludes that the teacher, Jane, was manipulated, deceived, and a victim of jealousy, with the speaker’s true motives exposed.

Despite claiming to support the child, the speaker showed no genuine care for either the child or the teacher, instead using the situation to advance personal grievances against Jane. The text reveals a tone of animosity and control, with key details omitted and contradictory behavior.

Had the speaker truly cared about justice, they would have taken action to support the child and clarify the situation, but their inaction and failure to advocate for Jane reflect a lack of accountability. By withholding crucial information and blaming Jane, the speaker further undermined their credibility.

Ultimately, the speaker used the situation to fuel personal bias and harm Jane’s reputation, showing a failure to act with integrity and compassion. The text’s unscrupulous​ tone reinforces that Jane’s victimization was worsened by betrayal and false narratives.

---

The Visitor

Claims of physical abuse against pupils on the rise

12:56 Friday 24 July 2009

Jane Watts’s 30-year teaching career was left in tatters after she was accused of hitting a five-year-old girl during a lesson at a Chorley school.

With teaching unions warning the number of claims of physical abuse against pupils is on the rise, the LEP investigates the impact on those inside the profession

“It was absolutely horrendous. I was warned that I might be handcuffed and put in a cell, I was fingerprinted, had my DNA taken and photographed.”

“I had been on the senior management team and had an unblemished record. I was terrified.”

Those are the words of 52-year-old Chorley teacher Jane Watts describing her horror as she was arrested at Leyland Police Station for allegedly assaulting a five-year-old girl in her class at Duke Street Primary School in September 2007.

She went on to face a police investigation but was never charged after the force dropped the case. Nonetheless, she was suspended and sacked for “gross misconduct”.

She was reinstated after an appeal but the school stood by its ruling of gross misconduct and she was sacked again in April this year after being too ill to return to the school due to the stress and anxiety it would have caused.

The mum-of-one, who lives in Astley Village, says: “The police said there was no case to answer but the school decided to take it into their own hands.”

“Imagine what it’s like to be called into the headteacher’s office for him to say you are suspended as you have assaulted a pupil – from then on your life deteriorates.”

“The day I was arrested was the worst day of my life. I have lived in Chorley for over 20 years but did not want to leave the house or go into town. I was aware that everyone was going to be talking about it.”

The reception class teacher says the complaint was made by a teaching assistant who claimed she slapped a five-year-old girl hard on the hand.

Mrs Watts says she has always denied the allegation, insisting she hit a table, not a child.

After having her appeal dismissed by the school, she has tried to clear her name by becoming the first teacher in the country to take a lie detector test to prove her innocence.

She hired renowned polygraph examiner Don Cargill – known for appearances on the Trisha Goddard show – and passed the test but education bosses dismissed the gesture.

She claims to have spent about £25,000 including legal advice in a bid to prove her innocence.

Andrew Kidd, headteacher at Duke Street Primary School, said: “There was a disciplinary hearing at school in March 2008 at which a member of staff was dismissed for assaulting a child, which was witnessed by another member of staff.”

“A subsequent appeal hearing decided that while the original finding of misconduct was correct, the decision to dismiss should be reduced to final written warning and at that point the member of staff was invited to return to work in July 2008.”

“However the staff member did not return to work and was dismissed by the governors in May 2009 on grounds of non-attendance.”

For the full feature, see Friday’s Lancashire Evening Post.

Lancashire Evening Post

Chorley teacher fights to clear name

11:03 Wednesday 22 July 2009

A Chorley teacher who was accused of slapping a five-year-old pupil has become the first teacher in the country to take a lie detector test to try and clear her name.

Jane Watts, 52, said her 30-year teaching career was left in tatters when a youngster accused her of hitting her on the hand during a lesson at Duke Street Primary School in 2007.

Although a police investigation found she had no case to answer, she was sacked for gross misconduct.

Now, the former teacher, who has spent more than £25,000 trying to clear her name, is calling for more protection for teachers.

She said: “This cannot be allowed to happen to anyone ever again. My life has been a living hell for two years because of this and it is still going on. Just talking about it sends me cold.”

“Teachers in this position are totally isolated. We have no-one and nowhere to go and that has to change.”

“This ordeal has robbed me of two years of my life and my career.”

The mother-of-one, who lives in Astley Village, was immediately suspended when the pupil made the accusation in September 2007.

She was arrested and had to attend Leyland Police Station where she was photographed, fingerprinted and had to give DNA samples.

She said: “It was not just humiliating, it was terrifying. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.”

Despite Mrs Watts being cleared by the police, Duke Street Primary School launched its own investigation and upheld the complaint. She was sacked in March 2008.

In a bid to clear her name, she hired renowned polygraph examiner Don Cargill – known for appearances on the Trisha Goddard show – to perform a lie detector test.

The test came back clear, but the school said it was unreliable. At an appeal hearing in July 2008, the teacher was reinstated with her punishment reduced – although the school still maintained she hit the child.

Mrs Watts maintains she is innocent.

Due to the stress of the ordeal, she has not been able to return to the school. She applied for early retirement but it was refused and she was sacked for non-attendance in 2009.

Looking back over the past two years, she said: “I don’t know how I’ve survived. Without the support of my family I would have lost it. There were days when I couldn’t get out of bed and it took months for me to go into town.”

The ordeal has also taken a massive financial toll on the family.

Mrs Watts added: “At one point I almost lost my house. I spent all my life savings just to stay afloat and almost had to sell my house.”

She now writes an online blog with help and advice for other teachers who feel they have nowhere to turn.

She has also used her experiences to write a book and has campaigned for changes in the law and policies relating to allegations against teachers.

Earlier this month, the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee in Parliament looked at Mrs Watts’ case, and others, and said new guidelines should be published to help headteachers deal with false allegations against their staff.

Mrs Watts said: “It finally seems like people are talking about the issue. I will not rest until I get changes made.

“It’s not about my sob story. It is about making sure nobody else has to go through what me and my family have been through.

“I’m determined to make sure the right changes are made. It’s what has kept me going.”

Andrew Kidd, Duke Street Primary headteacher, said: “There was a disciplinary hearing in March 2008 at which a member of staff was dismissed for assaulting a child, which was witnessed by another member of staff.”

“A subsequent appeal hearing decided that while the original finding of misconduct was correct, the decision to dismiss should be reduced to final written warning and at that point the member of staff was invited to return to work in July 2008.”

“However, the staff member did not return to work and was dismissed by the governors in May 2009 on grounds of non-attendance.”

Lies Of Omission

To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it’s a gross violation of another person’s right of self-determination.

A lie of omission is the most insidious, most pervasive, and most common lie on the entire planet. Commonly, those who use this type of lie, have conned themselves into believing that to intentionally remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up is not a lie at all. In spite of overwhelming evidence that their silence deceives, misleads, and often causes untold grief and misery, they refuse to speak the truth.

There is also the common misconception that intentional deception by silence has no consequences. Lies of commission (telling a lie) and lies of omission (withholding the truth) are both acts of intention deception.

To lie is to make statements that are untrue, when the falsity of such statements is known or suspected by the speaker. A lie can be a genuine falsehood or a selective truth, a lie by omission, or even the truth if the intention is to deceive or to cause an action not in the listener’s interests. A lie (also called prevarication) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone’s feelings or to avoid a punishment. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else.

Startling to most people is that, in considering whether a statement is a lie, the least important consideration is whether it is true ! The more important considerations are : Did he believe it ? Did he intend to deceive ? Was he trying to gain some advantage or to harm someone else ? Is it a serious matter, or a trivial one ? Even a true statement can be considered a lie if the person making that statement is doing so to deceive. It is the intent of being untruthful rather than the truthfulness of the statement itself that is considered. How can that be ? If a completely truthful and accurate statement is deliberately delivered in a manner that suggests that it should not be taken seriously, then it is a lie. Also, it is a lie when a person accidentally makes a true statement when he thought it was false. It’s the intent to lie that makes it a lie.

Reasons For Not Lying
Philosophers over the millennia have agreed that there is no good reason for lying. Their most important arguments are :

1. Lying is a perversion of the natural faculty of speech, the natural end of which is to communicate the thoughts of the speaker.
   
2. When one lies, one undermines trust in society.

There are different kinds of lies that have different effects and severity. The most important categories of lies are as follows :

Fabrication
A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although a fabrication may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth. Example of fabrication : A person giving directions to a tourist when the person doesn’t actually know the directions.

Bold-Faced Lie
A bold-faced lie (often also referred to as bare-faced or bald-faced lie) is one which is told when it is obvious to all concerned that it is a lie. For example, a child who has chocolate all around his mouth and denies that he has eaten any chocolate has told a bold-faced lie. There are political statements that are way beyond exaggeration that would fall in this category.

Lies Of Omission
One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that an unrepaired fault was reported at the last service. Another example of lying by omission happens when one person witnesses, or has knowledge of, a lie by a second person to a third (who subsequently relies upon the veracity of the lie) but does not inform the third person of the lie; Here, two people are lying to the third person.

Misleading Statement
A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth. Dissembling likewise describes the presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading. Sarcasm and obfuscation are frequently used to mislead or dissemble.

Contextual Lies
One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Quoting out of context is a classic example. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them. To say “Yeah, that’s right, I slept with your best friend” utilizing a sarcastic, offended tone, may cause the listener to assume the speaker did not mean what he said, when in fact he did.

---

For children, lying is a learned habit : Evolutionary psychology is concerned with the theory of mind which people employ to simulate another’s reaction to their story and determine if a lie will be believable. The most commonly cited milestone in the rising of this, what is known as Machiavellian Intelligence, is at the human age of about four and a half years, when children begin to be able to lie convincingly. Before this, they seem simply unable to comprehend that anyone doesn’t see the same view of events that they do - and seem to assume that there is only one point of view - their own - that must be integrated into any given story. If we grew up and lived in total isolation, lies would not exist for lack of need - there would be no one to lie to !

When children first learn how lying works, they lack the moral understanding of when to refrain from doing it. It takes years of watching people tell lies, and the results of these lies, to develop a proper understanding. Propensity to lie varies greatly between children, some doing so habitually and others being habitually honest. Habits in this regard are likely to change in early adulthood. Some never learn this lesson, or at least not the universality of the lesson. In one respect, they are lying to themselves for thinking that it is acceptable to lie when it is convenient or to their perceived benefit.

---

One standard form of legal oath before making a deposition or taking the witness stand in a court trial is “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ?” For which the proper response is “I do.” There’s a reason for making the oath so complicated. It’s a reminder to the deposed and the witness how not to lie. The first clause (tell the truth) is the affirmation part of the oath, the second clause (the whole truth) reminds the oath taker to leave nothing out, that is, no lying by omission, no out-of-context lies, and no misleading statements, and the last clause (nothing but the truth) is a reminder to relate no falsehoods, including fabrications.

---

Success

Like so many others, I have attributed the poem "Success" to Ralph Waldo Emerson. It would seem, from the many e-mails that I have received, that I am mistaken. "Success" was written as the winning entry in a contest run by the Brown Book Magazine, Boston in 1904 and "Bessie" Stanley won a cash prize of $250. Her poem was included in Bartlett's Book of Quotations for decades until they removed it in the 1960s.

---

He has achieved success who has lived well, laughed often, and loved much;
Who has enjoyed the trust of pure women, the respect of intelligent men and the love of little children;
Who has filled his niche and accomplished his task;
Who has never lacked appreciation of Earth's beauty or failed to express it;
Who has left the world better than he found it,
Whether an improved poppy, a perfect poem, or a rescued soul;
Who has always looked for the best in others and given them the best he had;
Whose life was an inspiration;
Whose memory a benediction.

Elisabeth Anne “Bessie” Anderson Stanley (1904)

---

“I wish you success in your fight and struggle. I hope that you might achieve better success than I have done and that my words, advice and humour can provide you with some support and inspiration.”

“Like the "Starfish Thrower" and the ethos of the poem "Success"; if I have helped just one person then I have succeeded.”

“Good luck and ‘Don’t Quit’ - ever !”

Good Advice

“Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could; some blunders and absurdities have crept in; forget them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day; you shall begin it serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

False allegations against teachers are commonplace and it can happen to you or maybe one of your colleagues. You need to protect yourself today to minimize your own risk and to appreciate the full magnitude of the consequential impact on you, your life and that of your family.

• Be prepared - get a copy of your school’s disciplinary procedures.
  (Ref. ‘Be Prepared’)
  
• Minimize risk - adopt the ‘two deep leadership rule’.
  (Ref. ‘It Can Happen To You’)
  

If you think that you are being bullied :
(Ref. ‘My Head’s A Bully’)

• At any meetings, take a representative with you.
  (If you find yourself in a one-one meeting, then insist that the meeting be adjourned until you can be accompanied - it is your legal right.)
  
• Keep a diarized account of any incidents and note any witnesses names.
  
• File any documentation that might relate to an incident.
  
• Do not make my mistake - If you recognize or think that you are being bullied, then address the problem. Speak with your union or seek independent legal advice.
  

If an allegation is made against you :

• At any meetings, take a representative with you.
  
• Until advised by either a union representative or solicitor, do not make a statement - say nothing.
  
• Do not discuss the allegation with colleagues - they could betray you.
  
• Contact your union as soon as possible.
  
• Document everything that you can recollect about the events that relate to the period of the allegation.
  (Provide your representative with a signed and dated copy.)
  
• Seek independent legal advice / opinion.
  
• Write a daily diarized journal of events / feelings - it is more than a good therapy and can provide a useful record that might help your defence.
  
• Your health and that of your family will be impacted. Eat well and look after yourself. Tell your GP, he will be able to help and provide advice.
  
• Maintain a useful and productive routine.
  
• Learn to relax – the process is slow. Months can elapse without any progress / developments.
  
• Don’t quit – remember that you are defending your life and your fundamental rights.
  

Refer to the article in ‘Horror Stories’ - ‘How you can protect yourself against such harmful claims’.

Certified Honest

I received my polygraph examination documentation in this morning’s post. I am now certified honest and truthful !

There is now a stronger hope for my appeal – maybe someone will now believe my account with more credulity than before ... at least it is new evidence that can be presented.

Nothing But The Truth

“I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

English / Welsh Oath

The face says it all - I passed !

As arranged, Don Cargill arrived at my home at 3 o’clock. We sat over a coffee whilst Don talked about his life, qualifications and the many cases that he had handled. He highlighted his recent work with Michael Shields and the support that he had received from Rt. Hon. Jack Straw M.P., Secretary of State for Justice.

After a while, he assembled the polygraph equipment and explained the purpose of each component – the pneumographs, skin galvanic sensors and the cardiosphygmograph. Later he showed me examples of polygraph results, including Michael Shields’ test graphs.

For the next hour or so, we discussed the allegations that had been made against me. A typical polygraph test comprises three questions that will be examined and a range of other unrelated control questions for reference purposes.

In the end, the three questions were :

• “Did you smack the girl on the hand on 26 September 2007 ?”
  
• “Have you ever purposely hurt any child whilst working at your school ?”
  
• “Were you sitting on a child’s green chair when the alleged smack on the girl took place ?”

Don then wired me with all of the polygraph sensors. After some preliminary tests / questions and calibration, everything was ready for my examination to start.

I was so apprehensive and scared. I can not describe my sense of anxiety ... it is the same feeling that you might experience when passing through the ‘Green Channel’ at an airport customs when you have nothing to declare; but this was much more intense.

He asked me to try to relax and to look directly ahead through the window as he began his questions. He asked me a total of six questions and this sequence was repeated three times.

After what seemed an eternity, he looked over at me and told me that I had answered truthfully to all questions.

He then showed me the graphs of my tests and how he had interpreted the various traces.

By this time, I was just so elated to know that I had proved my innocence – I HAD PASSED !

---

Example LX4000 Polygraph Traces

by courtesy of Lafayette Instrument Company

---

LX4000 Polygraph Components

by courtesy of Lafayette Instrument Company

The modern polygraph uses specialist software, LXSoftware (LX4000) & PolyScore, on a conventional Windows™ PC or laptop computer. Relative physiological changes within the examinee’s body are monitored by the following polygraph attachments :

• Respiratory Rate : Two rubber tubes filled with air, called pneumographs, are placed around the examinee’s chest and abdomen. When the chest or abdominal muscles expand, the air inside the tubes is displaced. The digital or computerized polygraph employs transducers to convert the energy of the displaced air into electronic signals.
  
  
• Galvanic Skin Resistance : This is also called electro-dermal activity and is basically a measure of sweat on your fingertips. The fingertips are one of the most porous areas on the body and therefore are a good place to look for sweat. The theory is we sweat more when we are placed under stress. Fingerplates, called galvanometers, are attached to two of the examinee’s fingers. These plates measure the skin’s ability to conduct electricity. When the skin is hydrated (as with sweat), it conducts electricity much more easily that when it is dry.
  
  
• Blood Pressure / Heart Rate : A blood pressure cuff, called a cardiosphygmograph, is placed around the examinee’s upper arm. Tubing runs from the cuff to the polygraph. Again, in digital or computerized polygraphs, these changes are converted into electrical signals by transducers.

There are other components that a polygraph examiner might use, including a specialist chair, video camera and a range of sensor pads to detect countermeasures that might otherwise compromise the polygraph test results.

The polygraph examination involves three phases : The pre-test phase, the data collection phase and the data analysis phase.

In the pre-test phase the polygraph examiner will complete the required paperwork and then familiarize the examinee with the testing procedure and the polygraph instrument. He will spend most of the pre-test phase discussing the issue for the polygraph test. Before the examinee is attached to the polygraph instrument the examiner will review each polygraph test question with him, word for word. There are no surprise or trick test questions.

During the data collection phase the examiner will administer the polygraph test and collect a number of polygraph charts depicting physiological changes occurring with the examinee’s body as the examiner reads each test question and the examinee answers “yes” or “no”.

During the data analysis phase, the examiner will carefully review and score each chart in order to render an opinion as to the truthfulness of the examinee’s answers. The opinion rendered will be one of the following : NO DECEPTION INDICATED meaning the examinee answered the relevant questions truthfully, DECEPTION INDICATED meaning the examinee did not tell the truth to the relevant test questions or sometimes the opinion is inconclusive when the examiner is unable to determine truth or deception from the examinee’s polygraph charts due to abnormal and / or inconsistent physiological reactions.

---

The main supplier of polygraph systems and accessories is an American company, Lafayette Instrument Company, based in Lafayette, Indiana. The company was established in 1947 by Max Wastl.

Lafayette Instrument Company : www.lafayettepolygraph.com

Another polygraph systems supplier, again American, is :

Limestone Technologies : www.limestonetech.com

---

During my examination, I was asked to deliberately lie by reading from a prewritten script. It got very confusing as I had not appreciated that the lie was implicit in the script and I kept adding mine.

I came across this transcription involving an American witness who also suffered similar confusion whilst attempting to swear an oath :

Clerk	:	Please repeat after me : “I swear by Almighty God ...”
Witness	:	I swear by Almighty God.
Clerk	:	That the evidence that I give ...
Witness	:	That’s right.
Clerk	:	Repeat it.
Witness	:	Repeat it.
Clerk	:	No ! Repeat what I said.
Witness	:	What you said when ?
Clerk	:	“That the evidence that I give ...”
Witness	:	That the evidence that I give.
Clerk	:	Shall be the truth and ...
Witness	:	It will, and nothing but the truth !
Clerk	:	Please, just repeat after me : “Shall be the truth and ...”
Witness	:	I’m not a scholar, you know !
Clerk	:	We can appreciate that. Just repeat after me : “Shall be the truth and ...”
Witness	:	Shall be the truth and.
Clerk	:	Say : “Nothing”.
Witness	:	Okay. (Witness remains silent)
Clerk	:	No ! Don’t say nothing. Say : “Nothing but the truth ...”
Witness	:	Yes.
Clerk	:	Can’t you say : “Nothing but the truth ...” ?
Witness	:	Yes.
Clerk	:	Well ? Do so.
Witness	:	You’re confusing me.
Clerk	:	Just say : “Nothing but the truth ...”. Yes ?
Witness	:	Okay. I understand.
Clerk	:	Then say it.
Witness	:	What ?
Clerk	:	“Nothing but the truth ...”
Witness	:	But I do ! That’s just it.
Clerk	:	You must say : “Nothing but the truth...”
Witness	:	I WILL say nothing but the truth !
Clerk	:	Please, just repeat these four words : “Nothing”, “But”, “The”, “Truth”.
Witness	:	What ? You mean, like, now ?
Clerk	:	Yes ! Now. Please. Just say those four words.
Witness	:	Nothing. But. The. Truth.
Clerk	:	Thank you.
Witness	:	I’m just not a scholar.

---

I felt elated at the end of the day. I had been so apprehensive about my test. It had been more stressful and demanding than I had expected and it had been worse than the police interview last October. I had passed and, for the first time in months, I had new hope and a sense of contentment.

I thought that you might like to share my rekindled sense of fun with another courtroom transcription :

Lawyer	:	Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse ?
Witness	:	No.
Lawyer	:	Did you check for blood pressure ?
Witness	:	No.
Lawyer	:	Did you check for breathing ?
Witness	:	No.
Lawyer	:	So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy ?
Witness	:	No.
Lawyer	:	How can you be so sure, Doctor ?
Witness	:	Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Lawyer	:	But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless ?
Witness	:	It is possible that he could have been alive and practising law somewhere.

Detecting Deception

NADAC is the largest privately owned polygraph company in the United Kingdom, with offices based in London and Manchester. In addition NADAC provides polygraph services throughout the UK and on an international basis.

The founding directors Cargill & Penner are the official polygraph lie detection experts for the Trisha Goddard show on Channel Five.

They specialize in providing highly confidential polygraph testing for the corporate sector, government and private individuals.

Their examiners use the latest state of the art computerized instruments and are fully conversant with the most up to date techniques.

NADAC’s managing director, Don Cargill, is the current chairman of the prestigious British and European Polygraph Association (BEPA) as well as being a member of the American Polygraph Association (APA).

Nadia Penner is also a board director of the BEPA and a member of the APA.

---

I had been struggling with the thought of my appeal. There was no new evidence that could be presented and the format for the appeal would be the same as that of the disciplinary hearing. There were two witnesses who were lying and their testimonies had remained solid. It was clear that I needed something ‘out-of-the-box’ otherwise the outcome was going to be another sham.

My partner had suggested taking a polygraph test but my solicitor was not supportive. I mulled the idea over and searched for information about ‘lie-detection’ ... there are only a few British agencies that provide this service.

I was cynical of the idea and its value until I called Don Cargill at NADAC this afternoon. He exuded confidence and enthusiasm for his specialist field, citing many recent examples of the scope his work. These included the high profile case of Michael Shields, the football supporter who is serving a 10 year sentence for the attempted murder of Bulgarian barman, Martin Georgiev in 2005.

Don explained that much of his work was now sanctioned by government and that the validity and acceptance of polygraph tests by the British justice systems was progressing.

I felt an immediate rapport with Don. He was understanding and empathetic of my plight, and he kindly offered to personally present his findings at my appeal. He agreed to see me at my home on Sunday afternoon. I came off the telephone with a new sense of hope and optimism that my appeal would have a new dimension and that I might just win my case !

The Pinocchio Effect

Scientists at the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago found that when you lie, chemicals known as catecholamines are released causing tissue inside the nose to swell. They used special imaging cameras to monitor blood flow in the body to show that lying causes an increase in blood pressure. This technology indicated that the human nose actually expands with blood during lying and is known as ‘The Pinocchio Effect’. The effect can induce mild irritation and a liar may rub their nose to satisfy the physical itch.

---

In English medieval courts, truth was tested by ordeals of fire and water, on the basis a truthful person would be protected by God.

Someone suspected of lying would have to carry a red-hot iron bar for nine paces. Alternatively he could opt to walk across nine red-hot ploughshares.

Either way, if the suspect was burned then this was proof that he was lying and so could be promptly hung.

Other courts went in for trial by water. In the ultimate ‘no-win’ situation, the person accused of lying was bound and thrown into a pond. If the accused sank this showed he was innocent but he might well drown anyway. If he floated this was taken as proof that he was lying and he would be hanged.

(The above techniques would be applicable and beneficial to at least two witnesses in my case !)

By the 1600s the idea arose that the truth of any statement could be arrived at by the means of detailed questioning and the application of scientific and logical reasoning to what was being said.

Modern legal conventions of cross-examination and the presumption that somebody is telling the truth unless it can be proved otherwise ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ date from this time.

The philosopher Descartes wrote “The power of distinguishing the true from the false, which is properly speaking what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men”.

Trying to work out whether somebody was lying was a matter of questioning, debate and the clash between different points of view based on the gathering and analysis of evidence.

In 1730, British novelist Daniel Defoe wrote an essay entitled "An Effectual Scheme for the Immediate Preventing of Street Robberies and Suppressing all Other Disorders of the Night", wherein he recommended that taking the pulse of a suspicious fellow was a practical, effective and humane method for distinguishing truthfulness from lying. Defoe’s was an early and insightful suggestion to employ medical science in the fight against crime.

In 1878, science first came to the aid of the truth seeker through the research of Italian physiologist Angelo Mosso. Mosso used an instrument called a plethysmograph in his research on emotion and fear in subjects undergoing questioning and he studied the effects of these variables on their cardiovascular and respiratory activity. Mosso studied blood circulation and breathing patterns and how these changed under certain stimuli. The use of the plethysmograph revealed periodic undulations or waves in a subject’s blood pressure caused by the respiratory cycle in response to certain stimuli. He was the first scientist to report on experiments in which he observed that a person’s breathing pattern changed under certain stimuli, and that this change, in turn, caused variations in their blood pressure and pulse rate.

Although not for the purpose of detecting deception, Sir James Mackenzie, M.D., constructed the clinical polygraph in 1892, an instrument to be used for medical examinations with the capability to simultaneously record undulated line tracings of the vascular pulses (radial, venous and arterial), by way of a stylus onto a revolving drum of smoked paper.

Until the end of the 19th century, no measuring device for the detection of deception had ever been used. The first use of a scientific instrument designed to measure physiological responses for this purpose came in 1895 when Italian physician, psychiatrist and pioneer criminologist Cesare Lombroso modified an existing instrument called a hydrosphygmograph and used this modified device in his experiments to measure the physiological changes that occurred in a crime suspect’s blood pressure and pulse rate during a police interrogation.

Notably, Lombroso’s early device for measuring pulse rate and blood pressure is similar to the cardiosphygmograph component of the contemporary polygraph. Although Cesare Lombroso did not invent the hydrosphygmograph, he is accorded the distinction of being the first person to have used the instrument successfully as a means for determining truthfulness from deception in crime suspects. On several occasions, he used the hydrosphygmograph in actual cases to assist the police in the identification of criminals.

In 1906, Sir James Mackenzie refined his clinical polygraph of 1892 when he devised the clinical ink polygraph with the help of Lancashire watchmaker, Sebastian Shaw. This instrument used a clockwork mechanism for the paper-rolling and time-marker movements and it produced ink recordings of physiological functions that were easier to acquire and to interpret. Interestingly, it has been written that the modern polygraph is really a modification of Dr. Mackenzie’s clinical ink polygraph.

In 1914, Italian psychologist Vittorio Benussi discovered a method for calculating the quotient of the inhalation to exhalation time as a means of verifying the truth and detecting deception in a subject. Using a pneumograph, a device that recorded a subject’s breathing patterns, Benussi conducted experiments regarding the respiratory symptoms of lying. He concluded that lying caused an emotional change within a subject that resulted in detectable respiratory changes that were indicative of deception.

Dr. William Moulton Marston, an American attorney and psychologist, is credited with inventing an early form of the lie detector when, in 1915, he developed the discontinuous systolic blood pressure test which would later become one component of the modern polygraph. Dr. Marston’s technique used a standard blood pressure cuff and a stethoscope to take intermittent systolic blood pressure readings of a suspect during questioning for the purpose of detecting deception.

In 1921, John A. Larson, a Canadian psychologist employed by the Berkeley Police Department, in California, developed what many consider to be the original lie detector when he added the item of respiration rate to that of blood pressure. He named his instrument the polygraph, a word derived from the Greek language meaning many writings, since it could read several physiological responses at the same time and document these responses on a revolving drum of smoked paper. Using his polygraph, John A. Larson was the first person to continually and simultaneously measure changes in a subject’s pulse rate, blood pressure and respiratory rate during an interrogation. His polygraph was used extensively, and with much success, in criminal investigations.

In 1925, Leonarde Keeler, who had gained firsthand experience in polygraph interrogations as a result of working with John A. Larson at the Berkeley Police Department, worked to devise a polygraph that used inked pens for recording the relative changes in a subject’s blood pressure, pulse rate and respiratory patterns, thus eliminating the need for smoking the paper and then preserving it with shellac.

In 1926, the Keeler Polygraph came on the market as the new and improved lie detector, an enhanced version of John A. Larson’s polygraph. Later, in 1938, Keeler refined the polygraph when he added a further physiological measuring component. The psycho-galvanometer, a component that measured changes in a subject’s galvanic skin resistance during questioning. In 1939, he patented what is now the prototype of the modern polygraph.

In 1947, John E. Reid, a lawyer from Chicago, Illinois, developed the Control Question Technique (CQT), a polygraph technique that incorporated control questions (comparison) which were designed to be emotionally arousing for non-deceptive subjects and less emotionally arousing for deceptive subjects than the relevant questions previously used. The Control Question Technique (CQT) replaced the Relevant / Irrelevant Question Technique (RIT) which used relevant or irrelevant questions during a polygraph examination. The Reid Control Question Technique was a major breakthrough in polygraph methodology.

In 1960, Cleve Backster, building upon the Reid Control Question Technique, developed the Backster Zone Comparison Technique (ZCT), a polygraph technique which primarily involved an alteration of the Reid question sequencing. He also introduced a quantification system of chart analysis, making it more objective and scientific than before. This system for the numerical evaluation of the physiological data collected from the polygraph charts has been adopted as standard procedure in the polygraph field today.

During the 1980s, research was conducted on computerized polygraph at the University of Utah by Drs. John C. Kircher and David C. Raskin and, in 1988, they developed the Computer Assisted Polygraph System (CAPS), which incorporated the first algorithm to be used for evaluating physiological data collected for diagnostic purposes.

In 2003, PolyScore Polygraph Software was developed. PolyScore is a computerized polygraph chart scoring algorithm that uses statistical probability to arrive at truthfulness or deception. It has been shown that validated algorithms have exceeded 98 per cent in their accuracy to quantify, analyze and evaluate the physiological data collected from polygraph examinations administered in real criminal cases.

The review committee of The National Academy of Sciences have concluded that, although there may be alternative techniques to polygraph testing, none can outperform the polygraph, nor do any of these yet show promise of supplanting the polygraph in the near future.

Downing Street

“We can find common qualities and common values that have made Britain the country it is. Our belief in tolerance and liberty which shines through British history. Our commitment to fairness, fair play and civic duty.”

Prime Minister - James Gordon Brown (1951- )

On 6 March 2008, I wrote to the Prime Minister for his help / advice. I had no expectation that he would even see my letter let alone provide a response. Many of my previous letters were either ignored or I received a standard letter of acknowledgement.

David Cameron MP, Leader of the Conservative Party, replied, as did Michael Gove MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, and both acknowledged my suffering and torment. Michael Gove said “I very much sympathise with the terrible position you find yourself in. My heart goes out to you.” Sadly both admitted that Parliamentary Rules prevented them from helping.

In this morning’s post, there was my reply from 10 Downing Street ! My letter had been read by Gordon Brown ! This time he had taken action and had requested a response from the Department for Children, Schools and Families about my case.

You never know without trying what you can achieve. Never give in - that next letter or thought might provide new hope and unexpected results might be achieved !

No Charges For ‘Slapper’

“Advertisements... contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.”

Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

“Editor: a person employed on a newspaper whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff and to see that the chaff is printed.”

Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

Once again I find myself in the newspapers - Chorley Guardian, 02 April 2008. The malicious cruelty of everything that has befallen me is unbearable and once again I feel so miserable.


The same article also had been published by the Lancashire Evening Post on 27 March 2008 - it seems likely that the story had been released to the press on the day of my hearing - probably as a precautionary measure, approved by the LEA.

I had spoken with the LEA last September about press statements. It seemed morally wrong that they should contribute to an article without alerting the individual of its impending publication. They agreed that it was an oversight and that they would review their policies. In future, I was assured that every effort would be made to contact the person to prevent unnecessary distress.

You get used to hearing empty meaningless words that have no sincerity - who cares !

I have pondered over these months as to who was responsible for contacting the local press. I had thought it to be my head teacher but the content was too thin and I am still puzzled. This time it must have been the head teacher - he is a bully and it is in his nature to exhibit such acts of cruelty.

To protect himself, the head teacher then put this notice up in the staffroom :

Internal Disciplinary Issue “It has come to my attention that there is talk about this matter, and not just because of an article in a local paper recently. I would like to inform staff that the process is ongoing and that staff need to respect the confidentiality associated with such a situation.”

You’re Fired

I received my notice letter from the LEA this morning. There in black and white :

“The seriousness of your actions, the distress caused to the child and your lack of remorse for your actions mean that the Committee do not feel able to take action short of dismissal. The Committee have determined that your actions constitute gross misconduct and have brought about a fundamental breach of the trust and confidence that the School is entitled to place in you. Therefore, we have resolved that you would be dismissed from school with immediate effect, without notice or payment in lieu of notice.”

Well there is no doubt there ! 30 years of dedicated and committed teaching exploded before me - discarded like last week’s rubbish - without care, understanding nor compassion.

Fair ? ... No ! Impartial ? ... No ! Angry ? ... Yes !

They talk of my lack of remorse ... oh, yes, I forgot it is the ‘British Way’; apologize when there is no fault and look sorry !

My fate had been determined and sealed 6 months ago. It no longer mattered who was lying or what actually happened. It had been a sham all along. The Committee and LEA never bothered to even read my statement. They extracted only those elements that supported my guilt - in their letter they say :

“We also note that your statement at that time made no reference to the possibility that you had slapped the table rather than the child.”

My statement contains :

“The task that she had was relatively easy and in order to regain her attention, I tapped the table in front of her. There were pencils, papers, books, etc. on the table and I probably tapped those resulting in the sound. She was not upset at the time and finished her work.”

They conclude in their letter :

“Having considered all the evidence available, we believe that on the afternoon of 26th September you momentarily lost control of your temper and slapped the child.”

Is there a difference between ‘slapped’ or ‘smacked’ ? The allegation had been that I had smacked the child on the hand. Bearing in mind that this event occurred across a 120cm diameter table surrounded by other children, it is difficult to imagine how it was possible !

I have been in teaching for 30 years. I am a mother too and, like every other parent, I have experienced a whole range of related emotions. Not once have I lost my temper or responded inappropriately in anger. If I had lost my temper with a child then I would not wait to be sacked ... I would have failed as a mother and a teacher and would resign !

“We have considered carefully both accounts of the suspension meeting and whilst we believe that the head teacher did make you aware that the allegations related to the child, we do accept that you should have been informed of your right to be represented at the outset of the meeting.”

In the head teacher’s investigative report, he states that, at the time of my suspension, he had told me the precise nature of the allegation and the name of the child. He also said that he had described the stages of the process and that there would be an initial ‘strategy meeting’ that would comprise the school and social services.

The fact is that he lied about this event. The purpose being to discredit my honesty – he had denied me my right to be accompanied and could now freely add conversation that never took place.

By some considerable good fortune, I remembered that I had spoken with the LEA HR department on 17 October 2007 and that I had a recording of the conversation :

Me	:	When do I actually find out ... um ... what I am supposed to have done ? And who I’m supposed to have done it with ‘cos I haven’t had .....
LEA HR	:	Right OK, so if the investigation progresses, dependent on who’s carrying that out, if it’s referred back to the school then you’ll be invited into an investigation meeting and all of the detail of that will be conveyed to you.

The reason for the call had been to inform me that a scheduled ‘strategy meeting’ had been postponed.

Me	:	What’s a ‘strategy meeting’ ?
LEA HR	:	The ‘strategy meeting’ is where the ... uh ... social services, the police and ourselves attend the meeting to determine what ... uh ... course of action is due to take place next.
Me	:	Right.

I would not have asked these questions if the head teacher had already communicated this information to me as is claimed.

(This had been the first and only attempt by the LEA to keep me informed about the progress of my case.)

The letter ends :

“The Committee hope that you feel you had a fair hearing and would like to assure you that they thoroughly considered all of the information presented prior to and during the hearing, in coming to their decision.”

Hoping that I felt it to be a fair hearing is not the same as knowing that they gave me a fair hearing ! Assuring me that they thoroughly considered all of the information is not the same as knowing that they thoroughly considered all of the information !

By their own admission in this letter, they omitted to notice such a key element of my case - I said at the hearing that I slapped or tapped the table, as does my statement ... they were not thorough ... but should I have expected anything better ?

---

The LEA were keen to cover their failings :

“We were concerned by your statement that no one with the exception of the police, had ever asked you to relate in your own words the events of 26th September 2007. We are satisfied that the disciplinary investigation meeting held on 13th December was convened in order to allow you to do so. We note that you took external advice and chose not to use this opportunity, preferring to submit a written statement.”

They might have been satisfied but I was not. My mental state through stress and medication makes it difficult for me to focus my attention. I was scared at the thought of this meeting of 13 December 2007, especially as there would be only my head teacher and his LEA representative present.

The LEA HR already knew from earlier unrelated meetings that I felt intimidated by the head teacher and that it would be especially stressful for me to be in his company.

The purpose of the meeting was not clear from the procedural documentation. I wanted to be able to relate my account without interruption and asked the LEA if that would be the case. They replied :

“The purpose of the meeting is in order for you to be able to respond to the allegation that has been made against you, this is covered in section 3.3 of the disciplinary procedure. Following the meeting it is proposed that a statement is made on your behalf and this then forms the basis of your response.”

It is clear that the purpose of this meeting was for the head teacher to interrogate me from which he would produce my statement. There was no way that I could cope with a grilling by my head teacher and I already had a very detailed statement - why therefore should I want someone to reinterpret my account ?

So on 13 December, I gave my written statement and added that they could contact me if there were any queries that had not been covered.
(The suggestion that I provide my own written statement did not originate from ‘external advice’ but directly from a senior LEA HR manager !)

I never heard from anyone over the next 3 months !

My mistake was that I provided too much information in my statement. I had explained in some detail the reasons why I could not have assaulted the child. This provided the head teacher with a clearly defined target to discredit my account - I should have kept quiet !

Sacked

The probable explanation for the expression is that in medieval times workmen carried the tools or implements of their trade in a bag or sack. When an unsatisfactory worker was to be fired, on the last day on the job, his employer would hand him his pay and the sack containing his tools – he had got the SACK, he had been SACKED.

---

Whatever the derivation of the word might be, that is what happened to me this morning at 10:00. My solicitor called to give me the bad news. He had no details other than I had been dismissed for gross misconduct. I should receive confirmation and the details of the findings of the committee by post in a few days. By then, my solicitor will be in a better position to advise me on how to proceed.

An appeal ? Sounds like a good idea but where will that lead ? More of the same from the same board of governors and I am certain that the head teacher will be able to create more evidence.

Knowing that you did nothing gives you a rather unique perspective and I find myself feeling so confused and let down by my trust and belief in society. All along, no one has cared or bothered and now to fully appreciate the callous and malicious nature of people is beyond belief.

Judgement Day

“Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that who cares ? ... He’s a mile away and you’ve got his shoes !” Billy Connelly (1942- ) “Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are a good person is a little like expecting a bull not to attack you because you are a vegetarian.” Dennis Wholey (1939- )

---

I awoke that morning with a sense of elation and pride. I was proud to have faced and overcome my perceived horrors of the hearing. I was optimistic that there might be a resolution - an end to the suffering.

It was confusing - whatever the outcome, it was not going to be what I wanted. Sacked or back to work at the same school - neither looked that attractive !

The rest of the morning, I wandered around expecting and dreading a telephone call - but none came. In the afternoon, I called my friend at school. She had been keeping a vigilant eye on activities and she said that the committee had convened just before 12:00.

By late afternoon, I still had heard nothing and my friend later said that the committee had adjourned shortly after 15:00.

I was determined to enjoy the remainder of the day. It had been my daughter’s 18th birthday two days earlier. She had just returned from holiday, so we celebrated over a meal in a local restaurant.

Later, we toasted her future with a glass of champagne and managed to forget the pending outcome of the hearing.

Disciplinary Hearing

Judge George Jeffreys was born in 1648. Educated at Cambridge, he was appointed Solicitor General to the Duke of York and was knighted in 1677. He became recorder of London in 1678 and, by the time he was 33, he became Lord Chief Justice of England and a privy counsellor, later becoming Lord Chancellor. In 1683, he became Baron Jeffreys of Wem.

He became known as the ‘Hanging Judge’ because of the punishments he had given to the supporters of the Duke of Monmouth as a result of a failed rebellion.

In 1685, Judge Jeffreys came to Dorchester and lodged at 6, High West Street, Dorchester, (now the restaurant, Judge Jeffreys). The Bloody Assizes were held in the Oak Room (now a Tea Room) of the Antelope Hotel on the 5th day of September in that year. Judge Jeffreys is said to have a secret passage from his lodgings to the Oak Room.

In total seventy-four people were executed, one hundred and seventy five were transported and twenty nine were pardoned. Executions were carried out in towns and villages close to Dorchester.

In 1688 when James II fled the country, Judge Jeffreys was placed in the Tower of London, where he died, aged 44, as the result of kidney disease.

---

The first electrocution in history was a disaster. The condemned man, axe murderer William Kemmler, lived through the first round of shocks. His executioners at Auburn prison in upstate New York had to do it all over again as the stink of Kemmler’s burning flesh filled the death house. “They would have done better with an axe.” Westinghouse commented.

---

I had not slept well; the usual nightmare of judges and court settings. My mind again was struggling to cope with what was going to be another ordeal. Exactly 6 months had now elapsed since the date of the allegation. There was little expectation of a fair hearing but I hoped that the skills of my barrister, who I had not yet met nor even spoken with, might produce a miracle.

The venue for the hearing was a local educational conference centre and was due to commence at 16:00. My barrister had arranged to meet me there at 14:30 to prepare.

My partner and I arrived at the same moment as my barrister. She was lovely and her demeanour of professionalism gave me a new found sense of courage to face what was now ahead.

We spent the next few hours discussing the details of my case and she outlined the format of her presentation of what I might expect.

My witnesses arrived at about 15:30 and she spent a while briefing them about their involvement and presentation.

The actual meeting started some 30 minutes late as my barrister had concerns about the members of the disciplinary committee but her request for a new committee was denied.

So, at about 16:30, we were led into the actual hearing to meet the various representatives of the LEA / governors :

After initial introductions and an explanation by the LEA HR representative about the format of the hearing, the head teacher read his report.

Prior to reading his conclusions, his witnesses appeared one at a time and they read their statements. The governors / LEA and my barrister then cross-examined each witness.

During this period there were several adjournments when the head teacher and his LEA HR support withdrew to discuss points that had been raised / queried by my barrister.

The head teacher then delivered his damning conclusions.

By the time the head teacher had finished his presentation and there were no more questions it was almost 20:00.

My barrister then introduced me and I was asked to relate my recollection of events. I was surprised to find that I spoke so freely and openly without interruption. It was much like my interview with the police – I told the truth and presented as full an account of what had happened as I was able.

I was then questioned by the chair of the disciplinary committee and the LEA representative. My head teacher attempted to make some derogatory remarks and asked some leading questions. I found that I was able to deal with the situation well and responded from a position of strength.

My witnesses then appeared before the assembly and made their presentations. As before, they were questioned at some length.

The head teacher then made his closing comments – essentially repeating that I was guilty of gross misconduct.

My barrister’s closing statement was such a contrast. It was well considered and pulled all of the known facts into a concise and cohesive argument.

By now it had gone 21:15 and the disciplinary committee said that the meeting would be adjourned until the following day. They said that they would deliberate the presentations and that a decision would be communicated to me via my solicitor.

I felt that I had given my best and I knew that I had been represented by the finest legal support possible.

So we walked out into the night, gave our barrister a big, heartfelt hug and our deepest thanks and went home with a sense of optimism.

The hearing had not been the nightmare ordeal that I had expected. No one lost their temper, although one of the head teacher’s witnesses did look very distressed even from the start.

Advice ? You must have a good legal representative – my confidence came from trust and faith in my barrister. It was very reassuring to have my partner with me ... he was not allowed to speak nor intervene on my behalf and he sat writing notes.

The rules for who may accompany you are well documented. Essentially you are allowed one representative – there was no problem expressed about my partner attending but I took the precaution of getting a letter from my doctor that stated my partner should be there on medical grounds due to my mental state.

Remember too that you can request an adjournment at any time.

Dress Rehearsal

“Thinking is easy, acting is difficult, and to put one’s thoughts into action is the most difficult thing in the world.”

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832)

“The truth needs so little rehearsal.”

Barbara Kingsolver (1955- )

The eve of the hearing has arrived. After some 6 months, I have accumulated a box file of paperwork and a lever arch folder crammed with neatly organized correspondence, statements and other reference material.

I have lived with it all, most I have written myself and most I now have forgotten.

Today, I look at it - there is too much ... like staring at a hedgerow from a high speed car, it all blurs and blends into a confusion of colour. Tomorrow it has to all become crystal clear, sharp and memorable.

I have not yet met my barrister and I wonder how much depth of knowledge that she has of my case and associated facts and details.

It is up to you but it is much like a revision process - a dress rehearsal. You will be asked questions and your responses need to be fluent, concise and accurate.

Everything is in your statement, so read it, noting any important points. Try to replay it all in your mind. Then scan all of your paperwork. Use ‘PostIt’ notes against anything that you might want to reference whilst taking notes of any questions that you would like your representative to address.

(The hearing will be an ordeal, so pamper yourself and have an early night - do not worry - my barrister was competent and able, as will be your representative !)

---

The head teacher professes to be an aspiring actor and says "In my spare time I tread the boards at Chorley Little Theatre."

His idea of a dress rehearsal was more akin to that involved with a theatrical production. He was observed entering my classroom with the two hostile witnesses after school where they discussed the format of the hearing and what would be said. Later they were seen around the scene of the ‘crime’ - the table, where they tried to reach over and smack one another.

I question whether such behaviour is in the best interests of impartiality and the desire to determine the ‘truth’ but remember it really no longer matters and no one cares anyway !

(I ponder whether the two witnesses were provided with a script !)

Einige Zitate

“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”

“As soon as by one’s own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one’s own right is laid.”

“Great liars are also great magicians.”

“How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.”

“Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.”

“I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.”

“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.”

“It is not truth that matters but victory.”

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

“Only force rules. Force is the first law.”

“Our teachers were absolute tyrants. They had no sympathy with youth; their one object was to stuff our brains and turn us into erudite apes like themselves. If any pupil showed the slightest trace of originality, they persecuted him relentlessly, and the only model pupils whom I have ever got to know have all been failures in after-life.”

“Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be ‘discovered’ by an election.”

“Strength lies not in defence but in attack.”

“Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.”

“The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.”

“The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.”

“The day of individual happiness has passed.”

“The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others.”

“The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.”

“The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.”

“The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.”

“The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.”

“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”

“Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”

“Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.”

“What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.”

“When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side”, I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already... What are you ? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.””

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)

The doctrine and ethos of Nazism is present in our lives in Britain. Once again we are surrounded by ‘whistleblowers’ whose actions are encouraged by the state. The denial of social and moral accountability permits the ‘bullies’ free reign.

No more so at my school where it is dangerous to say anything. Your words and actions are distorted and reported.

Pinocchio

Blue Fairy :	Now remember Pinocchio, be a good boy and always let your conscience be your guide.
Blue Fairy :	A lie keeps growing and growing until it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

Why do people lie ? In my case, two colleagues are now clearly lying. At first, I believed that they had made a genuine error of judgement and incorrectly interpreted events.

Now they are lying, their versions, with every telling, continue to change and new evidence and observations have been added - their lies get bigger. I suppose that they have no choice - when you start lying there can be no turning back - no matter the consequences.

Up until this mess, I had an implicit trust and faith in people. Today, I have a different opinion and it is sad to know that I doubt everyone’s motives ... no longer am I able to be as open and confident in my conversation.

It is pity that we are not more like Pinocchio ... lies are hard to recognize and even more difficult to defeat.

Types of Lie
Lies can be categorized in many different ways but a widely held view is that there are four types of lie :

• Pro-social - Lying to help someone else.
  
• Self-enhancement - Lying to make yourself look better whilst not hurting another.
  
• Selfish - Lying to personally benefit at the expense of another.
  
• Anti-social - Lying to deliberately damage another.
  

Simple Signs of Lying
The type of lie, and whether it is in keeping with the liar’s character, dictates how apparent the signs of lying are. Occasionally they are extremely obvious, especially when the liar is feeling guilty.

Obvious signs include :

• Over denial - Repeating protests of innocence.
  
• Stuttering - Stumbling over words without natural fluency.
  
• Hand Wringing - Fiddling, rubbing, picking and playing with the fingers and hands while talking.
  
• Eye Contact - Unwillingness to make or never breaking it.
  

The majority of people intending to tell a lie fabricate their story long beforehand and become comfortable with it and so rarely get caught out easily. Equally, many of the signs indicated may also simply be signs of nerves due to shyness or discomfort with a new situation.

Subtle Signs of Lying
There are of course more subtle signs which most people miss and which can affect even word perfect liars. These include :

• Over formal speech - Use of long words, painfully correct grammar and the full forms of words or phrases that would normally be shortened, suggesting a scripted speech rather than natural conversation.
  
• Very few gestures and no pointing - As physical movement illustrating something being described are a quite common and natural activity.
  
• Justification - Attempting to justify every detail with lengthy explanations
  
• Disparity - Mismatch between tone of voice and expression.
  

People who are used to detecting lies develop an instinct towards the more obscure signs, perhaps without even consciously noticing them. Most people, however, have a great deal of difficulty working out when someone is telling the truth. Which is why there are so many attempts to make a foolproof machine for catching lies.

I have pondered the value in taking a polygraph test. There are some staggering claims about their accuracy and reliability. I enquired about costs; there are three specialist organizations that will visit your home, including one that undertakes testing on behalf of Trisha Goddard’s Channel 5 Television programme - total cost of about £500.00. Yet would anyone be prepared to accept the validity of these tests ? Ideally I and the two hostile witnesses would have to be tested and that is not going to happen !

DETECTING DECEPTION : NADAC GROUP

---

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)

---

Life Of Brian

Brian	:	What will they do to me ?
Ben the Prisoner	:	Oh you’ll probably get away with crucifixion.
Brian	:	CRUCIFIXION ?
Ben the Prisoner	:	Yeah, first offence.

---

Brian	:	Thank God you’ve come, Reg.
Reg	:	Well, I think I should point out first, Brian, in all fairness, we are not, in fact, the rescue committee. However, I have been asked to read the following prepared statement on behalf of the movement. “We the People’s Front of Judea, brackets, officials, end brackets, do hereby convey our sincere fraternal and sisterly greetings to you, Brian, on this, the occasion of your martyrdom.”
Brian	:	What ?
Reg	:	“Your death will stand as a landmark in the continuing struggle to liberate the parent land from the hands of the Roman imperialist aggressors, excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture and any other Romans contributing to the welfare of Jews of both sexes and hermaphrodites. Signed, on behalf of the P. F. J., etc.” And I’d just like to add, on a personal note, my own admiration, for what you’re doing for us, Brian, on what must be, after all, for you a very difficult time.

---