PL/30/9.
A
~.305°-
*' 12. memorandin form. It is stinge that although he maintains that these
several reports were cobbled up by the defendant and the Class Instructor after he had been reverted and perhaps after he had begun to demand redress Exh.D.13A.for his wrongs, he nevertheless accepts that 134 (the defendant's
-contribution of the 12th of September) is genuine in as much as he does d not challenge that it was written on the date it bears. Tet, he does not Exh.D.138. concede this to 13B, Mr. Tidey's report, which 13A refers to as an
accompanying document. Similar criticisms are made as to the later reports (14A of the 1st of October and 143 of the 30th of September). 143, we have again a bare assation that it cannot be genuine because walbumy ridey had upon this occasion shown the plaintiff quite a different
report and one which was "favouble to him.
Exh.D.14A
& D. 14B.
O" OVOLI LINY 2014 cm
As to
Dorit Vill be seen that the plaintiff is in some difficulty to show anything of a solid factual nature, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, to support the theory which he propounds. As against these assertions, the defence vere, however, able to show entries in two official Receipt Books kept in the Teadquarters of the Police Department which, if genuine, establish beyond doubt that 11B and 14A (that is, the defendant's memoranda) were #feceived at Headquarters shortly after the dates which they bear. Again,
the plaintiff cerees that he received the warning letter (D.10) on the (19th of August and he does not dispute that it was written on the 14ta of Exh.D.113. August, the date it bears. The defendant's report (0.113) refers to that
Exh.D.11B
& D.14A. Exh.D.10.
Exh.D.3
& D.4.
Exh.D. 1571 Exh.D.11A,
D.13A & D.141.
Exh.D.15
2017
varning letter and directly echoes some of the phrases used in it. The re are various other consonances to which the defence have been able to point "between these memoranda and the other impugned documents (D.3 and D.4), but, from what has been said, it will be evident that whenever extrinsic or intrinsic evidence had been available, it invariably tended to authenticate all the documents and to rebut the suggestion of forgery, Of direct evidence of forgery there is of course none. Finally, on this aspect of the case, it will be noted that Exhibit D.15, the first alleged libel document, itself refers to in the xports 214,134 and 14A, must therefore either have been written after those were written or else contemporaneously in a single concerted exercise of falsification. This would necessarily have involved the interrelated falsificatior of D.3 and D.4 and pres'mably of the leadquarters Receipt Books at the same tiac. Apart from the fact that there is not the slightest inherent hint in any of these documents and no supporting evidence whatsoever to support such a massive act of forgery involving a number of participants, there is also the fact that the first libel document (D.15) refers to the entry in the Aberdeen Occurrence Book To. 11947, and the daintiff admits that this was made on the 11th of November, 1968.
The plaintiff also attributes a sinister significance to the fact that the report by the defendant in Aberdeen/MRE/11947/60 which announced that an inquiry wa. to be set on foot, had later become intermingled with his, the plaintiff's, own complaint to Anti-Corruption concerning Police corruption. There is no doubt that this appears to be so, and the reason
is not difficult to guess. Since the plaintiff's complaint to Mr. Wilkinson dealt with his version of the incident concerning the curries Supplied by him to officers in the Police Training School and since that incint had already been explored in depth by Mri Child, who carried out the investigation into the suspected cheating, there was a connecting link between the two, and, it would obviously be important to anyone who was inquiring into the corruption charge to have before him the results of any inquiry which had already been carried out in
كم
C
D
E
F
G
I
J
K
L
M
N
P
R
S
T
U
SC 742