103
61. Trotman immediately drew Quinn's attention to the note. This was confirmed by Stevens who said in evidence: “I saw them (Trotman and Quinn) approach the table which was in the room and they were looking at an object on the table. Then having seen that they were at the table, I went and approached the table and read what was on the note which was on the corner of the table." Stevens was visibly shaken as he read the note. He took no more than 10-15 seconds in reading it. He left the flat as soon as he finished.
62.
Stevens, however, was adamant that he had seen a different kind of note. He could not remember the exact words but remembered that it was in two parts, the first, as far as he could recall, referred to the writer's innocence, and the second, which he could remember more clearly, gave a direction that the writer's family should be told that the writer was a good Policeman. Stevens further thought that the note was written on lined file paper, measuring some 24"x8". He thought it was in two paragraphs, in eight lines of fairly close-packed handwriting. He further said that immediately he saw the note, Quinn placed it in a plastic exhibit bag which Quinn had with him.
63.
If Stevens was right, his testimony would seem to belie the camera, for soon after Trotman saw the note, he asked for the photographs shown in Plates 11 and 12 to be taken. These photographs showed the envelope at the bottom right hand corner of the desk and in close-up showed that there were only three lines on the envelope. In addition, the photographer took the photograph in Plate 13, showing the bedroom door from the living room.
64.
Stevens confirmed in evidence before this Commission that soon after he saw the note, he left the flat and the photographer was called in to take photographs. He saw the flashes of the camera within a very short time of his leaving his flat. If Stevens was right in saying that Quinn put the note in a plastic exhibit bag, it would be strange that the note could be photographed within such a very short space of time. Stevens had only an extremely brief sight of the note. The lighting by his own evidence (confirmed by Trotman and Quinn) was subdued. In the circumstances, bearing in mind Stevens' mental state at the time, I am absolutely confident that he was mistaken. I am fortified in this view by the following matters:---
(i) The two notes made by Stevens soon after he returned to his office on the 15th, both contained a reference to "a good Police Officer". One note was made by Stevens in his own handwriting, and contained merely a reference to a good Police Officer. He then dictated a further note which was later typed by his secretary. This typewritten note referred to his having read a "suicide note which asked that his (MacLennan) family be told that he was a good Police Officer despite whatever else might be alleged against him."25 Neither notes made reference to any protestations of innocence by MacLennan. If, in fact, there were such protestations, it would surely have been a matter which would have clearly featured in Stevens' mind at the time. If Stevens were to represent MacLennan on homosexual charges, surely his guilt or innocence would be a matter which was most likely to impress Stevens.
(ii) Both Stevens' contemporaneous notes were not inconsistent with the contents of note exhibited as Exhibit No.
B1.
(iii) In his first statement to the Police dated 18 January 1980 (only three days after the death of MacLennan), Stevens did not refer to the contents of the note at all. He merely said: "There was a note on the table written on a half sheet of paper. I read the note." It was only after he had given evidence at the Coroner's Inquest, during which the note was shown to him, that he was more specific about the note. In a statement to the Police dated 22 March 1980, he said: "I do not remember the exact words of the note but I do remember that it was in two parts. The first part, as far as I can recall, refers to the writer's innocence. The second part, I remember more clearly, gave a direction that the writer's family should be told that the writer was a good Policeman. The note was written on lined file paper and measured approximately 21′′ ×8′′."
(iv) Stevens was however much less specific in his evidence at the Inquest. During the Inquest, he failed to recognize the note Exhibit No. B1, saying that he thought that it was on yellow lined file paper, but the words were similar, adding that he could be entirely wrong in his recollection.
(v) In his evidence to this Commission, Stevens explained that he was under some pressure at the Coroner's Inquest and was confused. However, he later admitted in cross-examination that there was nothing at the Inquest to cause justifiable confusion, as all that was done was that a note was shown to him.
(vi) When Stevens was asked to demonstrate the size of the note that he saw, he used a piece of paper which he folded (Exhibit No. 167). This piece of paper was then compared with the note Exhibit No. B1. They were roughly of the same size.
(vii) Stevens suggested that there might be two notes. I find it difficult to believe that because if both notes were written by MacLennan, Quinn would have to work extremely fast to conceal the note that Stevens purportedly saw, before the photographer arrived to take the photograph shown in Plate 12. Of course, he would be seen by Trotman and perhaps by others who might be in the room or looking into the room at that
25
Exhibit No. B169.