Day 308 - 28 Nov 96 - Page 28


     
     1        book written by Ray Kroc, and Behind The Arches was a book
     2        written by John Love.  But Fred Turner, who is now Senior
     3        Chairman of the Board, instructed Mr. Love to take the
     4        McDonald's story further, with all the warts and everything
     5        that went with it.  So, I think both of the books are very
     6        interesting.
     7
     8        You asked him: "Are you content for students to rely on
     9        both of those books as an accurate factual portrayal of
    10        McDonald's?"
    11
    12        Answer: "I think so, sir."
    13
    14        So that just confirms what you had said, anyway, that the
    15        Behind The Arches book can be admissible as evidence and
    16        relied upon as an authorised document.
    17
    18        Can I just sum up Mr. Preston and malice, his personal
    19        malice responsibility?  He was involved with the Veggies
    20        case; therefore, he knows that that the London Greenpeace
    21        fact sheet, effectively, the circulation of it was
    22        effectively accepted by McDonald's, and that only a very
    23        small amendment in one section, only one section was
    24        amended.
    25
    26        He also knows the significance of its continued circulation
    27        to this day.
    28
    29        Secondly, he knows our legal case, he knows our beliefs, he
    30        knows that we issued statements, myself and Ms. Steel,
    31        outlining our genuine belief on all the issues.  He knows
    32        about all the witnesses that we planned to call.  He cannot
    33        tell the difference between truth and untruth generally,
    34        unless extremely backed into a corner; and that, even
    35        untruths -- and he knows, because he was challenged with
    36        untruths in solicitors' letters sent to critics to get them
    37        to cease criticisms.
    38
    39        We say that he made up a motive for taking legal action
    40        against London Greenpeace in 1989 in initiating legal
    41        action, which was, he claimed, based upon the aims and
    42        objectives of the London Greenpeace leaflet, which, the
    43        evidence was, was not obtained by the Company until 1990.
    44
    45        In any event, he fixated on some support in that document
    46        for Animal Liberation Front, which we would say -----
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do you have a reference for it not being
    49        obtained by the Company until 1990 -- because I did not
    50        think it was at all as clear as that? 
    51 
    52   MR. MORRIS:  He said he thought he had seen it, but the only 
    53        document in the bundles was from later dates.
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   It may be, yes.
    56
    57   MR. MORRIS:  And I do not think he was 100 percent clear.  But,
    58        in any event, we would say the construction to be drawn,
    59        the conclusion to be drawn from his evidence on this
    60        matter, is that it was a line which he picked up as a way

Prev Next Index