Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 47


     
     1        to the demonstration I was able to learn the identity of
     2        two of the organizers, Paul Gravett and Helen Steel", and
     3        when we cross-examined him on day 250, page 36, line 16 he
     4        said that that was not to be taken that he knew that myself
     5        and Mr. Gravett had organised the demonstration, and he
     6        said on day 259, page 5, line 40:  "I had no evidence that
     7        you had organised it."  So, it has to be asked:  Why did he
     8        put that in his statement?   It is obviously trying to
     9        build up the case against me, even though it is not true.
    10
    11        The other thing is that on day 250, page 46, line 31, he
    12        said that he saw 20 to 30 leaflets in total being
    13        distributed on that day.  So, we could ask why it was that
    14        he estimated in his first statement, paragraph 9, that
    15        several hundreds of leaflets were distributed on that day,
    16        because that is not evidence that he was able to give.
    17
    18        In relation to the second statement or the third statement,
    19        whatever, Mr. Nicholson had said on day 259, page 3, line
    20        32:  "When I made my first statement I had not looked upon
    21        my presence at the demonstration as being an evidential
    22        gathering exercise.  I simply went down there to see what
    23        was going on and I did want to get a copy of the leaflet
    24        being handed out."  He said it was not until he asserted
    25        that I had altered my defence that he saw to say that I had
    26        not distributed any leaflets, that he saw any importance in
    27        what he had noticed that afternoon and he could not recall
    28        whether or not it was him or the solicitors that realised
    29        the importance.
    30
    31        I mean, apart from the fact that I have not changed my
    32        case, it has been throughout I did not believe that I had
    33        handed out any copies of the fact sheet, as stated in the
    34        interrogatories.  I do not think so.  The point is that our
    35        original pleadings in this case were that publication was
    36        not admitted and, therefore, Mr. Nicholson and the
    37        solicitors knew that it would be up to them to prove
    38        publication.  So, there is absolutely no reason why all
    39        this detail which suddenly appeared in the second statement
    40        could not have been in the original statement, if it was
    41        true.
    42
    43        This was the point I was referring to before on day 259,
    44        page 3, line 59, that Mr. Nicholson said that the
    45        supplementary statement had been made after watching the
    46        videos and looking at photographs.  The point on that is
    47        that they may therefore distort his memory of events,
    48        because if he sees me distributing leaflets on other videos
    49        he may think, later on, that he remembers seeing me handing
    50        out leaflets on that demonstration, whereas it is really a 
    51        false memory. 
    52 
    53        In relation to that very point, he said on day 250,
    54        page 37, line 46, there was a description about people
    55        leafleting, and he said something about -- this was on the
    56        1989 picket -- he said about this that it was London
    57        Greenpeace's normal way of distributing leaflets.  Then he
    58        was asked:  "So that is what happens on every picket?"  He
    59        says:  "Yes, on all those that I have seen."  I think the
    60        point is that just goes to the point that when you have

Prev Next Index