Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 21


     
     1
     2        He cannot remember the detail now -- top of page 63.
     3
     4        He referred to Mr. Pocklington's notes.  I asked him, at
     5        the bottom of page 63, whether there were -- well, it does
     6        not really matter.
     7
     8        I asked him:  "So it is possible" -- line 9, page 64 -- "if
     9        what you are saying is true, that somebody there at the
    10        meeting said something to you about me which I did not
    11        overhear?"
    12
    13        Answer: "It either came from what you said, what you
    14        portrayed.  What somebody else said, I do not recall."
    15
    16        "But you do not remember if I would have overheard
    17        everything that was said that evening?"
    18
    19        Answer: "I do not think you did."
    20
    21        The point I am making there is -- and he has recognised
    22        it -- if somebody said something that was untrue about me,
    23        I would not necessarily have heard it.  Bearing in mind the
    24        informality at London Greenpeace meetings, there is no
    25        inference that can be drawn that if someone says something
    26        about someone that was not true, then obviously that would
    27        have been challenged at the time, because of the
    28        informality of the meetings.  In fact, I think it should
    29        also be noted -- it was a point I was going to make -- that
    30        people drifted in and out of meetings and one of the
    31        witnesses, one of them -- I mean, this came up during the
    32        evidence and it is only common sense in any event --
    33        especially because of the informality and people arriving
    34        late, leaving early, that kind of stuff.  There is no
    35        guarantee, without specific evidence to that effect, that
    36        anybody who is named as an attender of a meeting is
    37        actually there at any particular time hearing what is being
    38        said and participating.  I think that is very important in
    39        terms of the agency argument or any kind of decisions, such
    40        as they were, at any meetings.  The Plaintiffs have the
    41        burden of proof to show that myself or Helen Steel were
    42        actually in the room at the time, not just that they were
    43        named on a list of attenders but they were actually present
    44        in the room at the time when a specific decision was made,
    45        and they were participating by -- they could hear what was
    46        happening and influence the decision in such a way that
    47        might have led to publication, or that did lead to
    48        publication.  Absent that proof, then there is no
    49        evidence.
    50 
    51        Then I said to him at the middle of page 65: "So, as soon 
    52        as you heard me say my name was Dave, you thought 'Aha, 
    53        this could be important for future recollection'?
    54
    55        Answer: If it was the first occasion I had met you, yes, I
    56        knew it would be important.
    57
    58        Question:  Because you had been told that I was a key
    59        person in the anti-McDonald's campaign and you had to find
    60        out information about me?

Prev Next Index