Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 49
1 and it contains so-called facts which were not thought
2 important enough to include in the original statement,
3 despite the fact that the purpose of that original
4 statement was, in part, to prove distribution of the fact
5 sheet. I think, really, it is quite significant that it
6 was only after the evidence of Mr. Carroll had been
7 rendered effectively worthless that it was thought fit for
8 Mr. Nicholson to expand on his previous statement in order
9 to firm up on the evidence.
10
11 Just in relation to the October 1987 picket, Mr. Nicholson
12 said the picket was definitely in the afternoon. He had
13 previously said that it was a perfectly normal day. I
14 cannot remember what date that was. But he did not
15 remember anything out of the ordinary about the day. Then,
16 later on, he said that there was no picket in the morning.
17 It was definitely in the afternoon. This was on day 259,
18 pages 11 and 12. He does not remember that this was the
19 day after the massive hurricane. He does not remember
20 debris all over the place, that the tubes were not running
21 properly, that roads were blocked by falling trees, and he
22 just does not remember the hurricane being the night
23 before.
24
25 The point is that he cannot, in reality, have remembered
26 the 1987 picket, otherwise he would have remembered that it
27 was a highly unusual day. I mean, this is an extremely
28 rare occurrence, the hurricane. So anybody, if they had a
29 true memory of that day, would remember the fact that there
30 had been a massive hurricane the night before. He is
31 clearly thinking of something else when he is thinking of
32 the October 1987 picket.
33
34 I will do the point at the end. On day 259, page 14, line
35 12 he did not accept there was no picket on 16th October
36 1988 or around that weekend, over a weekend of action, and
37 on page 14, line 29, he stood by saying that there were
38 pickets at the Head Office on both 16th October 1987 and on
39 or around 16th October 1988, and he stood by saying that
40 those pickets were organised by London Greenpeace. He said
41 that they were, basically, run of the mill and much the
42 same as the others. Again, it is not for me to explain
43 what happened to his -- or why he should think that, about
44 1987 and 1988, but the point is his evidence is clearly
45 unreliable, whether it be that his memory is at fault or
46 that he is not telling the truth, whatever.
47
48 There is no evidence at all in this case that any of these
49 people who I allegedly handed a copy of the fact sheet to
50 was asked to hand over the copy. There is absolutely no
51 evidence that any members of the public received any fact
52 sheets either distributed by me or anybody else on that
53 day. There is no evidence proving the continuity of
54 exhibits picked up on the day in order for any witness to
55 positively identify them in court as the leaflet that they
56 obtained on that day. All the identification that has gone
57 on by witnesses for the Plaintiffs about the leaflets on
58 that day was based on either the size or the fact that
59 there was a graphic on the front, or on supposition that
60 there was only one leaflet and, therefore, it had to be
