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

Prev Next Index