Day 308 - 28 Nov 96 - Page 09
1 30th January 1995 from the McLibel support campaign,
2 I would make the same point about the fact that this refers
3 to some of the witnesses called by the Defence in the case
4 as being "our" witnesses. I just make the same point as
5 yesterday, really, that, also, neither of us had seen this
6 letter before it appeared in the trial bundles. I know
7 I cannot give evidence about this now, but the point is, it
8 is not up to us to provide the evidence; it is up to
9 McDonald's to show that we had a hand in publishing this
10 letter and a hand in any other document that they wish to
11 rely upon.
12
13 In fact, B, on the following page , really goes to prove
14 exactly my point in relation to the use of the words "we"
15 and "our". The speaker referred to in the video
16 recording "Attack of the Big Mac" is not myself or
17 Mr. Morris. I think, from memory, it is Mr. Mills. Yet,
18 despite the fact that he is not a defendant, he says: "We
19 are suing McDonald's." He is not any part of this trial,
20 but he is identifying with our side, in the same way as
21 football supporters identify with their team. It is simply
22 that he is declaring which side he is on, and that it is
23 our side rather than McDonald's side.
24
25 In terms of C, which appears on the same page, which refers
26 to an Internet transmission dated 21st November 1994,
27 I just say about that that it is extending law beyond all
28 precedent to say that we are responsible for everything
29 said by any person who is sympathetic to our case.
30
31 I just note that we also did not see this message until it
32 appeared in the trial bundles. It refers to pressure of
33 work in the office -- not in court, which is what the
34 Plaintiffs are trying to allege. There is a reference to
35 legal matters. It should be remembered that, as well as
36 working in the office, Mr. Mills is a solicitor, and from
37 time to time we did ask him to go and dig out authorities
38 for us, legal authorities, which would be relevant to a
39 legal application.
40
41 The matter pleaded at number 8 at the bottom of page 7,
42 that a document used by us or disclosed by us was faxed
43 from the fax of the McLibel support campaign, is a
44 ridiculous pleading because, obviously, if the McLibel
45 support campaign is sent some information which they
46 believe may be useful to us, they are going to pass it on
47 to us. It is hardly any surprise, since, you know, they
48 support our case.
49
50 As far as anything else from page 8 onwards, I am not going
51 to go through all of it. As far as I am concerned, as far
52 as both of us are concerned, McDonald's have not brought
53 any evidence to prove any of this. They did not ask me any
54 questions about any of it whilst I was in the witness box.
55 Therefore, there is no case to answer, and we do not intend
56 to waste time addressing you on this, since, apart from
57 anything else, we do not even know if it is Mr. Rampton's
58 intention to try to rely or justify any of these pleadings
59 when he is summing up. For all we know, he may have
60 abandoned 95 per cent of it -- which he will have to do,
