Cold-Case Christianity

by J. Warner Wallace

  But if you ask me to recall the specifics of Valentine’s Day in 1988, I can provide you with a much more accurate recollection. This was the day that Susie and I were married. It definitely sticks out in my mind. I can remember the details with much more precision because this event was unequaled in my life and experience. It’s the only time I’ve ever been married, and the excitement and importance of the event were unparalleled for me. Valentine’s Day stands out when compared to other days in February, but this Valentine’s Day was even more special. Not all memories are equally important or memorable.

  When eyewitnesses encounter an event that is similarly unique, unrepeated, and powerful, they are far more likely to remember it and recall specific details accurately. Sylvia and Paul had never observed a robbery prior to the one they observed in the liquor store. It was a unique, unrepeated event. As such, it stuck out in their minds and memories. This doesn’t mean that their testimonies ought to be accepted without testing; the four criteria we’ve already described in this chapter must still be applied to Sylvia and Paul. We still have to determine if they were present to see the robbery and have a history of honesty and accuracy. We still need to determine if their testimonies can be corroborated by additional evidence and examine their motives to make sure they are not lying. If these criteria can be met, we have good reason to trust their testimonies as reliable.

  THE UNEQUALED EVENTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

  I remember the day I was married because it was unique, unrepeated, and personally important. Now put yourself in the shoes of the apostles as they witnessed the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. None of these eyewitnesses had ever seen anyone like Jesus before. He did more than teach them important lessons; He astonished the eyewitnesses with miracles that were unique and personally powerful. The apostles experienced only one Jesus in their lifetime; they observed only one man rise from the dead. The resurrection was unique, unrepeated, and powerful.

  The gospel eyewitnesses observed a singularly powerful and memorable event and provided us with accounts that are distinctive, idiosyncratic, personal, and reliable. We simply have to take the time to understand the perspective and character of each eyewitness and then determine if the accounts are trustworthy given the four criteria we have described (more on that in section 2).

  A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE CHECKLIST

  This may be one of the most important principles we can tuck away in our callout bag. Unless you’ve worked a lot with eyewitnesses and have become familiar with the nature of apparent contradictions in eyewitness accounts, it’s easy to assume that people are lying (or are mistaken) simply because they don’t agree on every detail or have ignored some facts in favor of others. If nothing else, we have to remember that an eyewitness account can be reliable in spite of apparent contradictions. While we might complain about two accounts that appear to differ in some way, we would be even more suspicious if there were absolutely no peculiarities or differences. If this were the case with the Gospels, I bet we would argue that they were the result of some elaborate collusion. As we examine the gospel accounts, we need to give the writers the same benefit of the doubt we would give other eyewitnesses. Human eyewitnesses produce human eyewitness accounts; they are often idiosyncratic and personal, but reliable nonetheless.

  As a Christian, I recognize that the Bible is God’s Word, but I also recognize that it was delivered to us through the observations and recollections of human eyewitnesses. Before I share that the Bible has something important to offer, I typically take the time to make a case for why the Bible has something important to offer. It’s important for people to see that the writers identified themselves as eyewitnesses. They weren’t writing moral fiction. They were recording what they saw with their own eyes, heard with their own ears, and touched with their own hands. Let’s recognize the importance of biblical reliability and help our skeptical friends recognize the nature of personal, reliable eyewitness testimony. Many of us have seen or heard something during the course of our lives that forever changed the way we thought about the world around us. That’s precisely what happened to the gospel writers. Their observations changed them forever, and their testimony can change the world we live in.

  CASE NOTES

  18. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 105.

  19. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 105.

  20. Benjamin Weiser, “In New Jersey, Rules Are Changed on Witness IDs,” New York Times, August 24, 2011, accessed April 18, 2012, www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/nyregion/in-new-jersey-rules-changed-on-witness-ids.html.

  Chapter 5

  Principle #5:

  HANG ON EVERY WORD

  After an exhausting day of interviews, we were really no closer to having a suspect in view. We were still looking for a trailhead, a direction that would lead us to the suspect who killed a beautiful young woman in our city in 1981. We managed to locate all the men and women who had been suspected of this crime many years ago and arranged interviews with them. Eight hours into these meetings, I was still undecided about who might be the most likely candidate for the murder. Then Scott Taylor said something that caught my attention.

  Scott dated the victim about one year prior to the murder. He had been interviewed back in 1981, along with many other men who dated or knew her. The original investigators had been unable to single out any one of these men as a primary suspect. Today, Scott said something that seemed unusual. It wasn’t anything big. In fact, my partner didn’t catch it at all.

  We asked each candidate how he or she “felt” about the victim’s murder. We were careful to ask the question the same way each time we asked it; the responses were important to us as we tried to understand the relationships between the potential suspects and the victim. One responded, “I’m shocked that someone could have killed her.” Another told us, “It’s tragic; I hope you guys catch the killer.” A third said, “Although we had problems, I was devastated when I learned about it.” Scott said something very different.

  “Let me ask you, Scott, how did you feel about her death? Did you have any feelings about it one way or the other?” I asked him casually, hoping to gauge his response.

  Scott paused for a second, choosing his words. He shrugged his shoulders slightly and said, “Well, I was sorry to see her dead, you know. We didn’t always get along, but it’s never good to see anyone die.”

  Of all the possible responses that Scott could have offered, this one struck me as odd and a bit telling. It may have simply been a figure of speech that was common to Scott—I would have to interview him more thoroughly to see if I could provoke a similar response about something else—but it was interesting that Scott’s first reply to our question was that he was “sorry to see her dead.” We knew the killer stood over the victim’s body and made sure she was dead by nudging her. It could reasonably be said that the killer “saw her dead” prior to leaving the scene. Was Scott inadvertently telling us something about his involvement in this crime?

  Forensic Statement Analysis

  The careful study and analysis of the words (both written and spoken) provided by a suspect, witness, or victim. The purpose of Forensic Statement Analysis is to determine truthfulness or deception on the part of the person making the statement.

  It would be another year before we would complete our investigation. Ultimately, we learned a lot more about Scott’s relationship with the victim, and we eventually determined that he killed her because he didn’t want anyone else to date her following their breakup. We discovered a large amount of circumstantial evidence that came together to make our case. Scott’s statement about “see[ing] her dead” pointed us in his direction and was eventually used in court (along with everything else we learned) to convict him. Was this
statement enough, on its own, to make our case? Of course not. But it was consistent with Scott’s involvement and truly reflected the way he felt in the moments following the murder.

  Scott’s case taught me the value of paying close attention to every word a suspect might offer. We all choose the words we use. Sometimes we choose as a matter of habit. Sometimes we choose words that reflect, either consciously or subconsciously, the truth about how we feel or the truth about what really happened. I’ve learned to hang on every word.

  THE ART OF FORENSIC STATEMENT ANALYSIS

  In my first years as an investigator, my department sent me to a number of classes, seminars, and training exercises to improve my skills. One of these classes was a course in Forensic Statement Analysis (FSA). There I learned to refine my ability to hear and interpret every word offered by a suspect in a case. I began to employ FSA techniques almost immediately. I routinely asked suspects to write down what they did back on the day of the murder, accounting for their activity from the time they got up in the morning to the time they went to bed. I provided each suspect a blank piece of lined paper and a pen. Any alterations in their statement would have to be scratched out, and as a result, I was able to see what they initially wrote and where they were uncomfortable with their original choice of words. I would then examine this statement, asking several important questions. What kinds of words did the suspect use to describe the victim? Does the suspect ever inadvertently slip from the present to the past tense, giving away his or her presence or involvement at the scene of the crime? Does the suspect compress or expand the description of events in order to hide something or lie about how something occurred? Does the suspect over- or underidentify the victim in an effort to seem friendlier or disinterested in the victim? In essence, I examined every word to see if it provided any clue related to the suspect’s involvement in the crime.

  Let me give you an example. Imagine that we asked a suspect about his activity last night with his wife (who is now the victim of a murder). In describing what happened, the man responded:

  “I took Amy, my beautiful wife of thirty-one years, out to dinner and a movie.”

  I’ve already learned something about their relationship in just this one sentence. Notice that the suspect told us his wife’s name, and was apparently proud enough of her (or their relationship) to mention how long they had been together. Notice also that the suspect used the possessive expression “my beautiful wife” when he could easily have described her in some other way. Imagine, for example, if he had said this:

  “I took my wife out to dinner and a movie.”

  While he still used a possessive expression (“my wife”) in this response, he did not describe her as beautiful, and he reserved the information about her name and the length of their relationship. Maybe he’s a private person who was uncomfortable with revealing personal details. Maybe he was not as proud of his wife or wanted to distance himself from her. We’d have to spend some time with him to learn more. Let’s now imagine that he said this in response to our questioning:

  “I took the wife out to dinner and a movie.”

  The suspect dropped the possessive language and described his wife as “the wife.” Hmm. Why would he do that? Maybe this was just a figure of speech that he always used in describing anyone he had a relationship with, whether good or bad. Maybe he was distancing himself from his wife for some reason. Once again, we’d have to investigate this further. Finally, let’s imagine that he said something like this:

  “I took the old lady out to dinner and a movie.”

  What Is the Forensic Statement Analyst Trying to Achieve?

  Forensic Statement Analysts carefully examine the words offered by witnesses and suspects in an effort to determine the following:

  1. Is the writer (or speaker) more involved in the event than he or she might like us to believe?

  2. Are there relational problems between the writer (or speaker) and the victim who is the subject of the case?

  3. What are the hidden difficulties between the writer (or speaker) and the victim in the investigation?

  4. Was the writer (or speaker) actually doing what he or she claimed to be doing at the time of the crime?

  5. Should the writer (or speaker) be considered as a suspect in this crime under consideration?

  Here, the suspect may simply have been using a figure of speech that was common to his region or his culture or even his family. He might, however, have been revealing something about his feelings toward his wife. He did not use possessive language, he gave us very little information about her, and he described her in a less-than-flattering manner. We would have to look at other areas of his statement to see if he used similar language when describing others or if he reserved these kinds of words for his wife alone. In any case, his use of words told us something important.

  Clearly, this sort of word examination is more an interpretive art than a hard science, but the more we understand the importance of words, the better we become at discerning their meanings. Remember, all of us choose the words we use, and we’ve got lots of words to choose from. Our words eventually give us away.

  THE FORENSIC GOSPELS

  I had been interviewing and studying suspect and eyewitness statements for many years before I opened my first Bible. I approached the Gospels like I would any other forensic statement. Every little idiosyncrasy stood out for me. Every word was important. The small details interested me and forced me to dig deeper. As an example, the fact that John never mentioned the proper name of Jesus’s mother (Mary) was curious to me. In his gospel, John repeatedly referred to Mary as “Jesus’s mother” or “the mother of Jesus” but never referred to her by name (as did the other gospel writers). Why would this be the case?

  The answer might be found in the nineteenth chapter of John’s gospel when Jesus entrusted Mary to John at the crucifixion. Jesus told John that Mary was now his mother, and He told Mary that John was now her son. John took Mary and cared for her (as he would his own mother) from this point on. Writing the gospel of John many years later, it just may be that John was uncomfortable calling his own mother by her formal name. I’m sure by this time in his life, John was referring to Mary as “my mother.” It doesn’t surprise me then that John would hesitate to call his adopted mother by her proper name in the gospel.

  The more I read the Gospels, the more interested I was in taking a forensic approach in an effort to read between the lines of the gospel writers. My interest reached its peak in the gospel of Mark.

  One of my Christian friends told me that Mark’s gospel was really the eyewitness account of the apostle Peter. The early church seemed to agree. Papias (ca. AD 70–ca. 163), the ancient bishop of Hierapolis (located in western Turkey), claimed that Mark penned his gospel in Rome as Peter’s scribe. He reported that “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.”21 Irenaeus (ca. AD 115–ca. 202), a student of Ignatius and Polycarp (two students of the apostle John) and the eventual bishop of Lugdunum (now Lyon, France), repeated this claim. He wrote, “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”22 Justin Martyr (ca. AD 103–ca. 165), the famous early church apologist from Rome, also mentioned an early “memoir” of Peter and described it in a way that is unique to the gospel of Mark.23 In addition, Clement of Alexandria (ca. AD 150–ca. 215), the historic leader of the church in North Africa, wrote that those who heard Peter’s teaching “were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose Gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally.”24 These early church leaders and students of the apostles (from diverse g
eographic regions) were “closest to the action.” They repeatedly and uniformly claimed that Mark’s gospel was a record of Peter’s eyewitness observations. But could a forensic statement analysis of the gospel of Mark verify these claims?

  As I began to study Mark’s gospel forensically, I observed a number of interesting anomalies related to Peter. These peculiarities seemed reasonable if Peter was, in fact, Mark’s source for information. Let me share some of them with you.

  MARK MENTIONED PETER WITH PROMINENCE

  Peter is featured frequently in Mark’s gospel. As an example, Mark referred to Peter twenty-six times in his short account, compared to Matthew, who mentioned Peter only three additional times in his much longer gospel.

  MARK IDENTIFIED PETER WITH THE MOST FAMILIARITY

  More importantly, Mark is the only writer who refused to use the term “Simon Peter” when describing Peter (he used either “Simon” or “Peter”). This may seem trivial, but it is important. Simon was the most popular male name in Palestine at the time of Mark’s writing,25 yet Mark made no attempt to distinguish the apostle Simon from the hundreds of other Simons known to his readers (John, by comparison, referred to Peter more formally as “Simon Peter” seventeen times). Mark consistently used the briefest, most familiar versions of Peter’s name.

  MARK USED PETER AS A SET OF “BOOKENDS”

  Unlike in other gospel accounts, Peter is the first disciple identified in the text (Mark 1:16) and the last disciple mentioned in the text (Mark 16:7). Scholars describe this type of “bookending” as “inclusio”26 and have noticed it in other ancient texts where a piece of history is attributed to a particular eyewitness. In any case, Peter is prominent in Mark’s gospel as the first and last named disciple.