Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 23
1 throws doubt on his credibility.
2
3 He had mischaracterised, on page 56, line 25, what he
4 called "an anti-McDonald's international reference". I
5 cannot remember what he called it now, but he had got it
6 wrong, anyway. It was not an anti-McDonald's drawer. It
7 was a general letters drawer. Then he characterised one of
8 the other drawers as "McDonald's answered letters" or
9 answered letters dealing with McDonald's, and that was a
10 mischaracterisation as well. It was a general letters
11 drawer. So, the conclusion is that he is, really, finding
12 McDonald's everywhere where it is not and, in his mind, it
13 is one huge construction even when it is blatantly wrong.
14
15 He had also characterised the letter tray -- this is when
16 he had entered the office without our permission, the
17 group's permission -- as incoming letters for Paul, Helen,
18 Stephen, Andrew and John. Stephen was a name that he was
19 given when he was instructed and there was nobody in the
20 group called Stephen. So, here we are, even some two
21 months later, inventing evidence which corresponds to what
22 he had been instructed when it has absolutely no basis in
23 reality. There was nobody called Stephen, nobody mentioned
24 anyone called Stephen at any time in the eighteen month
25 period, or whenever, or even longer, but because he had
26 been shown a photograph of someone identified as Stephen on
27 it he was identifying letter trays for Stephen. It is
28 incredible, we would say, and indicative that he was very
29 impressionable when he was instructed. Also on page 59 he
30 had identified in the photographs a typewriter used to type
31 leaflets and info sheets, but he did not have any evidence
32 that it was actually used for that. In fact, the evidence
33 that was heard in court was to the contrary. I cannot
34 remember.
35
36 Page 62, line 31, he was challenged about whether he was,
37 effectively, vindictive against the group because of its
38 politics. He said that the politics of the group were so
39 varied. That is line 31. I think that is quite important
40 as well, because the politics of the group were varied and,
41 let alone the interests and activities of the people that
42 attended, the politics could not be assumed to be similar
43 and, in fact, the aims and principles or the aims and
44 objectives of London Greenpeace's leaflet, there is no
45 evidence at all that individuals in the group necessarily
46 agreed with it or circulated it at all times and, in any
47 case, that has no structural significance, that leaflet,
48 because of the way the group works it was just another
49 leaflet which people could agree with or not agree with,
50 circulate or not circulate, and no one (as we have heard)
51 was ever asked what their political views were as in terms
52 of whether they were compatible with this, what he says,
53 varied group in terms of politics in any event. So, if
54 people have varied politics, then there could not be a
55 statement of political aims which people would
56 automatically agree with.
57
58 I will just see if we have any -- I have a small amount to
59 do. It may be better to finish that off after lunch.
60
