1
↓
84
PART V PERSONS INVOLVED
provided no corroboration at any time for the first and main part of the alleged message passed to Mrs. ELLIOTT, for he never suggested that he had been paid by the police to get into the riots; whilst any corroboration of the later part of the message about blaming Mrs. ELLIOTT, in whatever sense that must be under stood, was hardly less elusive. Some of the difficulty comes of course from the vagueness of the allegation itself. 'Blame her'; in what sense? Was it for being one of the main contributors to the events leading up to the demonstrations and riots, or for having actually paid someone to participate in or start stone throwing?
312. As so often happens with a story that has no basis of fact, LO Kei's allegation of pressure by the police tended to alter and change as questions con- tinued. At one stage he talked of being forced to make oral statements, whilst earlier he had talked for being forced to sign a statement prepared by the police to the effect that Mrs. ELLIOTT had paid him; but efforts to ascertain mor precisely what was in the statements, and when and how they came to be made, seemed never to end in any point of certainty. The evidence of Mr. IBBITSON and other police officers, which we believed, showed that there was no such signed statement but that there was a document consisting of a rough note made by Mr. IBBITSON of what LO Kei had said during a period when he was letting fancy take virtually complete control of his tongue. In this note there was a mention of Mrs. ELLIOTT and Mr. BERNACCHI in some such role. It stated that they planned that LO Kei should take the lead in demonstrations and in making a petition to the Governor; spoke of the Governor being overthrown and of Mr. BERNACCHI becoming Chancellor with LO Kei being given a prominent role, becoming inter national news and a well-known man of the world; followed by wild talk about thousands and thousands of demonstrations and riots.
313. In his evidence LO Kei told what appeared to be almost equally fanciful stories about being beaten, receiving thousands of blows from 20 or 30 policemen lined up for the purpose, evidence which in itself was difficult to credit, even i it had not come into conflict with the evidence given by a prison doctor and by Messrs. IBBITSON, O'BRIEN and TAYLOR. The latter three officers were in contact with him at the relevant time, and although their evidence contradicted his allega tions about beating it was not made the subject of any cross-examination on these points by Mrs. ELLIOTT's representatives. Counsel for Mrs. ELLIOTT had been at pains to obtain from LO Kei statements alleging that Mr. IBBITSON had suggested to him the allegations he had made against Mrs. ELLIOTT and Mr. BERNACCHI. When Mr. IBBITSON gave evidence refuting these statements, Mrs. ELLIOTT'S counsel did not attend the hearing and her solicitor was content merely to put a few questions to him on entirely different matters-a remarkable performance i it was sought to attach any weight or credence to this part of LO Kei's evidence The prison doctor was cross-examined on this matter but we saw no reason to doubt his testimony that, on inquiry when admitted to prison on 12th Apr LO Kei made no complaint and that when medically examined on the 15th, the
da
th
Sp
CC
se
le
M
th
di
al
p
W
W
Ρ
W
fc
0.
0
ir
g
W
b
tl
р
d
h
a
C
V
а
F