06 Geoffrey Boys: ‘Mistaken identity?’

This article is based on the record of an electronic note taker (ENT) hired to provide deaf attendees with a rendering of what people said in real time. It is a phonetic account, first and foremost, taken down in the heat of the moment. An echo of what was said rather than a reflection of what might have been written before or since.

Sandra Saer: Geoffrey would you like to speak?

Geoffrey Boys: Thank you. I have prepared 3 pages. Having listened to the discussions, I have decided to make 2 statements for you to chew over over lunch. They have considerable significance to today.

My title for today was “Mistaken Identity?” My alternative is “Briden?” I’m here today as I gave evidence to Lord Carlile on January 24th 2018 of the possible misidentity of the Bishop. I thought my evidence might be relevant but I was uncertain as to who to tell. I believe mistakes were made by the Church as they failed to look far enough into the information which is now online.

Carol’s identity remains unknown. However, we can identify the house where she stayed and the name of her relative. Knowing her name others may have been able to contribute. I have met a centenarian who knows the relative of Carol when she made the allegations.

I gave evidence to Lord Carlile. I gave evidence to Briden anonymously. It is hard to keep this information anonymous. If you search on the web, you can find the information.

My evidence was received by Lord Carlile on 24th January 2018. I do not think it a coincidence there was a meeting on 29th January and it was announced on 31st January the Church had received more information and there would be a further enquiry.

When I was interviewed on May 29th I was the first witness. I am identified as witness A.

It starts on 12th February. A retired member of the clergy wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury suggesting there might have been another member of the clergy who could have perpetrated the abuse alleged by Carol. He said Mr Boys has come forward to make a similar allegation.

With regards to both of these episodes, I have decided the allegations against Bishop Bell have not been laid out. It is therefore not necessary for me to investigate other suggestions.
From Witnesses A and D that there might be another member of the clergy, there was no evidence that this was so. The question therefore remains unsolved.

From Witnesses A and D that there might be another member of the clergy, there was no evidence that this was so. The question therefore remains unsolved.

Sandra Saer: Any questions?

New speaker: Why did the lady keep quiet for so long?

Geoffrey Boys: In the Lord Carlile report we are only told about the lady.

New speaker: I’m unclear if your studies and research are able to be in the public domain? It sounds like it is tucked away in your archives.

Geoffrey Boys: That is certainly so. Tucked away in my archives, particularly what I said to Ray Galloway. The further information I offered to Ray was just after he submitted his report. What I have read to you today is in the public arena, particularly using search engines on the web.

Sandra Saer: The George Bell Group have something on their website about mistaken identity. Some of you are members of that group. There is information on who might have been responsible – someone who is not Bishop Bell.

Geoffrey Boys: Academics wrote about this some time ago. There is also recent information online,

New speaker: Is anyone acting on that? Are the Church investigating?

Geoffrey Boys: We were told in the Lord Carlile and Briden reports it was not within their terms of reference.

Sandra Saer: The Bishop commissioned the Briden report. How can he disassociate himself?

Geoffrey Boys: The first investigation with the Briden report was about the question I raised.

New speaker: How can this be taken forward?

Sandra Saer: We have the Briden report that states Bishop Bell was innocent.

New speaker: Are the IICSA looking into the Church of England again? Can we submit it to them?

Geoffrey Boys: I approached Lord Carlile in January and then later they arranged for Briden to talk to me. Another bit of significant information, when I first put my question to Lord Carlile he said there was no truth in it. No truth in my allegation about what I believed happened.

Sandra Saer: You knew other people too who knew about this.

Richard: The Karmi report has relevance. It is next door. That is a way to go into it further. There is a lot of information already which gives more of an insight into who the perpetrator might be.

Geoffrey Boys: It might be more complicated than that. If I direct you to the Karmi report you won’t pick up the whole story. Where Carol stayed is in the public arena.

New speaker: Can we not know that? Where she stayed?

Geoffrey Boys: You have to put 2 and 2 together. Carol makes a statement in her evidence in the Lord Carlile report which says “I stayed at the house nearest to the palace”. Having established that, it was important to ask who lived there. It was occupied from the 1930s to the 1980s by the same person.

New speaker: Who?

Geoffrey Boys: The chauffeur – Mr Monk.

New speaker: Can I suggest … these matters are dealt with by journalists and historians etc. This is so long ago. Evidence is muddled. We cannot arrive at a final truth. I don’t think we should encourage the Church to say perhaps it was this or that. The Church needs to say what it did was wrong in the first place. I’m not saying there isn’t truth in these. It is important that you get to the truth. I don’t think it is helpful to go down these routes.

Geoffrey Boys: I’m not a historian. I have been reading what the historians have said. When I raised the question just over a year ago, I thought that is my job finished; I won’t say any more. I can’t let it go though.

Sandra Saer: Thank you very much indeed.