|
|
|
R M Wiseman Legal Director Shell UK limited Shell-Mex House London WC2R 0XD. Your Ref: UKLG 23 May 2000. Dear Mr Wiseman, Today I received a letter from Mr. Mark
Moody-Stuart.,
unfortunately I did not receive the letter until rather late in the day.
In his letter, Mr. Moody-Stuart, repeats your assertion that I attached
unacceptable conditions to my offer(s) in order to make available my research
findings to Shell. You will recall that in our telephone conversation of Monday
last, I once again offered, in exchange for Shell acting responsibly, to hand
over, virtually my entire body of evidence.
You will understand, from my perspective, that when (part) my evidence
was disclosed to Shell, in 1993, Shell, fabricated, using the supplied evidence,
a sham Narrative. The Cobalt-60
Narrative, of the 7/2/94, signed by your
Media Relations Manager and former BBC current affairs broadcaster, Fran
(Frances) Morrison, was a tissue of lies from start to
finish.
Consequently, I hardly feel it is unreasonable that I now request that
Shell, gives verifiable undertakings to behave in a ‘responsible’ manner,
before I hand over my evidence. In our telephone conversation yesterday, you repeatedly
requested that I define, what I mean by ‘responsible’.
In an attempt, at this very, very late hour, to resolve this
‘impasse’. I am prepared to
hand over my body of evidence, as set-out, to Shell via agreed
intermediaries-one from each side. Independent,
internationally renowned physicists and or suitably technical scientists of the
highest repute will surely meet with your approval. Should you have any other
suggestions regarding suitable disciplines/ candidates, I would, of course, be
only to willing to listen. However,
as a great deal of the evidence is of a technical nature, I believe the
particular disciplines will be to your satisfaction. Should this not be acceptable, I shall willingly agree to
you (Shell) freely viewing and acquiring copies of my evidence, in exchange for
you allowing me similar access to your various files and personnel concerning
this matter. Should this prove unacceptable, I am willing to jointly
interview, with your representative(s),
former Shell and decommission employees, and others, who will be able to verify
my allegations. As I explained to you on Monday, at no time have I demanded,
required or even expected that the Shell Group admit, as a pre-condition for
obtaining my evidence, liability, or culpability. In view of Mr. Moody-Stuart’s letter, in which he has
apparently been under the same confusion regarding the meaning of my use of the
term-responsible, I am prepared to await a further seven days for your response.
Should none of these suggestions prove satisfactory, I can only conclude the
blindly obvious. Yours sincerely, John Dyer |