13
1
f
=
5
1
5
UN
}
there was clear evidence from a handwriting expert that the suicide note in the locked flat had been written by the dead Inspector.
Mr. Panell, whilst agreeing that this was the only real evidence the Jury was presented with that could possibly indicate suicide, he thought it possible that in the case of a detective, as MacLennan was, the note could have been written under pressure, even at gun point.
Rightly or wrongly, Mr. Panell's challenge added further fuel to a debate that was already simmering. 2 June 80
The Attorney General issued a press conference re-iterating his reasons for not re-opening the MacLennan Inquest, but did not answer any of the challenges posed by Panell. This provoked further editorial comments in the press. On 3 June 1980, the Hong Kong Standard said: “The written statement of the Attorney General issued last night— mainly to clarify the legal position of the MacLennan case—failed, sadly enough, to dispel the doubts that Panell's rebuff had sown in the public's mind, and as long as no attempt is made to remove these doubts, the very foundation of impartial justice in Hong Kong would inevitably, as many fear, be at stake."
7 June 80
The Hong Kong Bar Association issued a carefully worded statement expressing the view that the Attorney General's conclusion that MacLennan had died by suicide might "nevertheless suggest that the Jury had come to an incorrect verdict", although the Committee pointed out that it believed that the Attorney General did not intend to make such a suggestion. The next few days saw further calls for a second inquiry.
There was a radio programme conducted by Mrs. Aileen Bridgewater where a short story allegedly written by a certain Simon Blake was read out by Mrs. Bridgewater. The title of the story was "The Inspector who knew too much." The hero of the story was Inspector MacLean. It was quite clear that the story was meant to relate to the death of Inspector MacLennan and the theme of the story was that he was murdered because "he knew too much".1
17 June 80
Mrs. Elliott gave a press conference which was extensively covered by the media. At the press conference, she made it clear that there must be another inquiry. For the first time in public, she gave details of what she had heard from Mr. Howard Lindsay, a former Crown Counsel, of members of the Special Investigation Unit (the SIU) intimidating another Police Inspector (whom she did not name) to try to "set-up" MacLennan on homosexual charges.
19 June 80
The Attorney General issued a lengthy statement answering the points made by Mrs. Elliott. In the statement, the Attorney General reproduced a letter which he sent to Mrs. Elliott dated 2 February 1980 in which he referred to the European Inspector (whom he called Inspector XYZ) who had allegedly been intimidated into trying to set-up MacLennan, as having made a statement to the Police in which he denied that he was asked to frame anybody. The statement did not appear to have satisfied Mrs. Elliott who was quick to issue this challenge to the Attorney General: "I suggest that he (Mr. Griffiths) produce Inspector XYZ to deny it." Mrs. Elliott, in the next few days, continued with her calls for a second inquiry, in which campaign, she appeared to have been supported by the major English newspapers of the day.
30 June 80
Mr. Lindsay, the former Crown Counsel, wrote to all the English newspapers and for the first time in public, Inspector XYZ was named. He was Senior Inspector Michael Fulton. In his letter to the press, Lindsay described in detail how he had heard from Fulton of an alleged attempt by the SIU to have Fulton set-up MacLennan. He described how he had arranged for Fulton to repeat his complaint to Mrs. Elliott and another Crown Counsel. He also said that he repeated the same complaint to the Attorney General on 22 November 1979, he wrote a long letter setting out in detail the background of the Fulton complaint as he knew it, to the Coroner, and that later, on 10 February 1980, he gave a supplementary statement to Superintendent Pelly, the Coroner's investigating officer. 3 July 80
Fulton decided to issue a public statement through his solicitors. The statement said: "on our instructions, however, it is among other things also true that our client was instructed by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force to set-up the later Inspector MacLennan. Our client had never complied with such instructions, and insofar as the impression has been created that he made those allegations and subsequently withdrew them, the impression is false." On the same day, the Chairman of the Hong Kong Branch of Justice, Mr. Ian MacCullum called for a full judicial inquiry into "whether attempts have been made to set-up Mr. MacLennan, whether that was the proper way for the Police to handle the matter, whether it was done purely to establish that he was homosexual, whether it was done, as apparently alleged, to try to stifle information he had regarding other people." This call echoed the views of all the major English newspapers.
It will be seen from my findings in the Chapters which follow that there was absolutely no basis for the theory that MacLennan was murdered because "he knew too much". The story was therefore mischievous.