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
