Day 012 - 18 Jul 94 - Page 52


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  On what basis?
 
     2   MR. MORRIS:  I just think a lot of assertions have been made.
              No evidence has been brought.  Implications are said about
     3        the assistant Attorney General for the state of Texas; the
              letter written by the Attorney General of Texas, Jim
     4        Mattox, certain implications have been said about that,
              about that he is incapable of writing his own text for his
     5        own letters he signed.  I just find the whole thing -----
 
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No one said he is incapable of writing his
              only text for his own letters.  You do not have to be in
     7        the law for very long before you realise that people in
              high positions often have letters drafted for them.  They
     8        should read them through.  They should make sure they
              reflect their views.  They do not draft them any more than
     9        a minister or Prime Minister drafts all his own speeches.
 
    10   MS. STEEL:  Has Mr. Rampton any evidence at all to suggest this
              letter was not written by Jim Mattox?  If not, this is a
    11        false point.
 
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  He can put it.  You can answer it, if you
              wish.  This is one side of the coin at the moment. That is
    13        all I am hearing.
 
    14   MS. STEEL:  He should not be trying to insinuate something
              unless he has some evidence that what he is insinuating
    15        is, in fact, the case.
 
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If he feels he has some basis for it, he can
              perfectly properly put it.  If you call Mr. Gardner, he
    17        can answer it.  If you are unable to call Mr. Gardner but
              can get in touch with him, he can make a supplemental
    18        statement which you can make subject to a Civil Evidence
              Act notice.  At the moment I do not know how important, if
    19        indeed it will have any importance at the end of the day.
              At the moment there is a direct conflict between this
    20        witness's evidence and Mr. Gardner's Civil Evidence Act
              statement as to whether McDonald's withdrew this
    21        advertising campaign under pressure from one two or three
              of the Attorneys General.  There is a direct issue.
    22
         MS. STEEL:  I understand that.
    23
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Somebody is either not telling the truth or,
    24        putting it at its very lowest, being inaccurate,
              historically inaccurate; I may have to decide who it is.
    25
         MS. STEEL:  I understand that, but, I mean, perhaps because we 
    26        are not a 100 per cent aware of the law with regard to 
              cross-examination in this way, you know, perhaps it would 
    27        be helpful if we had some assistance.  I mean, it seems
              strange to me that Mr. Rampton can make an assertion that
    28        this letter was nothing to do with Jim Mattox in reality,
              when he has no evidence to that effect.  He is asking a
    29        witness who has no way of knowing whether this letter was
              written by Jim Mattox or not.  It is all totally
    30        hypothetical.
 

Prev Next Index