181
And on that basis she preferred the term "frame-up" to "set-up"77 She also said:-
"I think I used the word 'frame', but I use this word rather loosely, because I deal with a lot of cases where people complain the police have made up cases against them, and I have just got into the habit of saying 'frame-up' without stopping to think well, was it incitement to crime, set-up, or frame-up."
78
I've tried to avoid it (the word 'frame-up') when I remember, but I am accustomed to using that—that's my phraseology. I am not a lawyer."
(b) "Cover-up”—“Fixed-up”
"79
Mrs. Elliott was asked whether she still thought the Coroner's Inquest was a “cover-up":-
Mrs. Elliott: I don't think I've ever said the Coroner's Inquest was a 'cover-up'.
Mr. Lucas:
Let me assure you, Mrs. Elliott, you have.
Mrs. Elliott: Oh, well, maybe I thought it was.
Mr. Lucas:
May you thought it was, Mrs. Elliott. Let's take you up on that point. You don't remember saying at any stage that the Coroner's Inquest was a 'cover-up'?
Mrs. Elliott: Yes, I think you're right. I think I did.
Mr. Lucas:
Are you sure?
Mrs. Elliott: I would need to see where because I've used the word 'cover-up' and I can't remember in what
80 connection.
She had certainly used the term on many occasions81 and the connection that was put to her was her letter to the Governor on 18 March 1980 where she wrote:—
"Any further investigations by the police can only be intended as a second cover-up. No honest witnesses will come forward now, if the police are in charge. Personally, if I am asked, it would require a subpoena before I would take part in a further police cover-up. The Inquest was quite shamelessly fixed up, and we can only be thankful that the jury dared to question the evidence by giving the verdict they did.'
When this was put to her, Mrs. Elliott said:-
83
#82
"Yes. In not calling all the witnesses I considered it to be so.' "You know, I didn't consult a lawyer before I wrote the letter to the Governor, and what means 'fix-up' to you in law may not be what I mean by 'fix-up'. I just mean that it was just arranged in a certain way.'
"84
85
What she meant was that many of the statements taken by Pelly (including a statement from Mrs. Elliott herself) had been ruled by the Coroner as irrelevant and those statements were not used at the Inquest. She did not stop to think whether there could be a simple, straightforward reason for that; she never considered if it was because (and indeed it was) the Coroner was limited in his powers by the terms of the Coroner's Ordinance. In fact, she was present when Counsel for the Police submitted to the Coroner that all evidence should be given at the Inquest, and the Coroner ruled against him. But Mrs. Elliott was not prepared to accept that, she said:-
"I wasn't behind the scenes to see who decided what as to why the who was going to call the witnesses and how many of them were going to be called and who was going to be missed out.
(a) "Thug"
Mrs. Elliott wrote to the Attorney General on 19 January 1980:—
1986
"I see no good reason why, if all I say is correct, this thug Quinn should continue to blight other people's lives and get off scot free himself."
At the Inquiry, Mrs. Elliott was asked:-
87
"Mr. Lucas: Do you have an animus against Mr. Quinn?
Mrs. Elliott: Not particularly . . . I had no reason to have an animus against him.
Mr. Lucas: You called him a thug.
Mrs. Elliott: Yes, I use that term when I mean a kind of a bully."
77 See Also Mrs. Elliott's answers at Transcript page 11233.
78
See Transcript page 11143.
79
See Transcript page 11233.
80 See Transcript page 11200.
81
82
See Mrs. Elliott's letter to the Scottish Police dated 24 January 1980, Commission File A, page 86AK; her letter to the Governor dated 29 January 1980 and March 1980.
See Commission File A, page 86AE.
83 See Transcript page 11201.
84 See Transcript page 11205.
85 See Transcript pages 11200 and 11215.
86 See Transcript page 11202.
87
See Transcript page 11266.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.