▁and ▁Hel ms ▁could ▁thus ▁tail or ▁their ▁testim ony ▁so ▁as ▁to ▁limit ▁the ▁scope ▁of ▁discussion ▁to ▁matter ▁already ▁known ▁by ▁the ▁committee . ▁Such ▁st ance ▁of ▁institution al ▁loyal ty ▁to ▁their ▁ag ency ▁showed ▁through ▁in ▁their ▁de mean or . ▁ ▁From ▁these ▁characteristic ▁ev as ions , ▁la ps es ▁of ▁memory , ▁hints , ▁and ▁suggestions ▁the ▁[ Ch urch ] ▁committee ▁and ▁its ▁staff ▁concluded ▁that ▁the ▁men ▁they ▁question ed , ▁including ▁Hel ms , ▁knew ▁more ▁than ▁they ▁would ▁say . ▁Then ▁why ▁did ▁many ▁of ▁them ▁grow ▁to ▁trust ▁Hel ms ? ▁For ▁the ▁simple ▁reason ▁that ▁he ▁never ▁tried ▁to ▁conv ince ▁them ▁they ▁knew ▁all ▁there ▁was ▁to ▁know , ▁when ▁they ▁did ▁not . ▁ ▁Yet ▁Hel ms ' ▁testim ony , ▁which ▁made ▁head lines , ▁for ▁the ▁most ▁part ▁amount ed ▁to ▁a ▁circ ums pect , ▁professional ▁defense ▁of ▁the ▁ag ency . ▁It ▁was ▁rather ▁the ▁testim ony ▁of ▁William ▁Col by ▁the ▁current ▁D CI ▁that ▁had ▁more ▁last ing ▁import ▁and ▁created ▁greater ▁controvers y . ▁Col by ▁also ▁spark ed ▁division ▁within ▁the ▁C IA . ▁Hel ms ▁part ed ▁ways ▁with ▁Col by ▁as ▁a ▁result , ▁and ▁especially ▁regarding ▁Col by ' s ▁del icate ▁role ▁in ▁the ▁per j ury ▁alleg ations ▁against ▁him . C f ., ▁Pr ados ▁( 2 0 0 9 ) ▁p . ▁ 3 0 6 . ▁ ▁Ple a , ▁after