Ref: A00-300995 Case No. 871626 Macpherson II
Volume VI, Pages 1-47, Tuesday 20th June, 1989
(In the presence of the jury)
MR. BECKMAN: Before Dr. Pearson is called, may I mention, out of
courtesy to your Lordship, what I have done? I have my
experts, Dr. Stewart and Dr. Witherson [sic], sitting immediately
behind me so if I have to get any information I can do so
without causing anybody any interruption.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: As long as others in the row do not
object, I do not mind at all.
GRAHAM PEARSON: Sworn
Examined by Mr. Temple
Q. Dr. Pearson, can we take the formal matters first; is it
Dr. Graham Pearson? A. Yes.
Q. What are your qualifications? A. I am a Bachelor of
Science; First Class Honours Degree in Chemistry and also
Doctor of Philosophy.
Q. What is your present position? A. I am Director of the
Ministry of Defence Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton
Down, near Salisbury.
Q. I am going to ask that you have in front of you our Exhibit
4, pages 6 to 18 inclusive. (Handed to the witness) Was the
position that you received a copy of that documentation at
the Chemical Defence Establishment on 1st April 1987?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you have a look at it? A. Yes, we did.
Q. Apart from examining it yourself, did a number of your
colleagues also examine it? A. That is correct. I not
only examined it myself, but I asked some of my super-
intendents of the divisions within the Establishment who had
expertise in different areas of assessment of hazards of
biological activity, of medical effects and of course on
chemistry synthesis to examine the document as well.
Q. The following day, on 2nd April, were you in a position to
provide the Forensic Science Laboratory of the Metropolitan
Police with your initial appreciation? A. We were.
Q. Can I indicate to you that I am not going to take you through
in any detail relating to the actual chemical analysis of
what is written in that document. I want to approach it
first of all by way of asking what your general reaction was
to the documentation, and secondly, to ask you one or two
limited questions about one or two extracts which I am going
to invite you to look at within the documentation. Firstly,
what was your initial reaction on reading the documentation?
A. My initial reaction of this document appeared to be a
feasible means of disseminating hazardous chemicals in the
circumstances described. After further detailed examination
we felt that it no longer held up to that scrutiny.
MR. TEMPLE: Against that very general introduction by way of
your reaction to it, can I ask you to deal in particular with
our page 7 of the documentation; it is your page 2.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Is that treated copy legible? A. It
is legible, my Lord.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: As they are all exhibits he can have a
clean one. (Handed to the witness) You will remember it was
treated for fingerprints and therefore it has gone funny,
ladies and gentlemen.
MR. TEMPLE: Doctor, do you have page 7 on the bottom right hand
corner? A. Page 7, bottom right hand corner.
Q. What was your overall view as to the electronic aspects which
are mentioned within that page? A. Our view was the
electronic aspects were feasible as described.
Q. Just so that we can appreciate the position, you yourself, do
you specialise in electronic engineering? A. No, we
specialise in the assessment of the chemical and biological
hazards. We are not experts in the electronic field; we
review this from our knowledge. There was no reason to
believe this was not feasible.
Q. Would you turn over to page 8. We can see this is headed
"Medical effects: Phase I". Can you assist us as to what
type of material or agent was apparently being described
within that page? A. Our assessment was that mustard gas
or a mustard agent was being described in that page. This
is particularly because of the reference in paragraph 2 to
the gas being a powerful vesicant. "Vesicant" means it
produces blisters and that is very much a characteristic of
mustard gas.
Q. Perhaps you can help the jury to this extent in a sentence or
two: what do you understand by the phrase "mustard gas"?
A. Mustard gas is a particular material which was used in
World War I by both the Germans and the Allied forces. It
encapsulates, creates those very nasty blisters and has been
used in the Iraq/Iran conflict of recent years. I think most
of you will have seen pictures in the press and on television
of mustard gas victims.
Q. Page 9. We can see it is headed "Medical Effects: Phase II".
"Those who survive the primary Phase I of
the attack would live to see the full horror
of Di-tox B7's solid components."
Again the same basic question: what agent or substance is
apparently being described within page 9? A. Our assessment
was that the compound being described on page 9 was a
material known as Dioxin.
Q. Help us further with regard to Dioxin: what is it and can
you cite a recent example? A. Sorry?
Q. What is Dioxin and can you cite us a recent example of where
Dioxin has been used or had adverse effects? A. Dioxin is
an extremely stable toxic material which is produced from
industrial solvents under high pressure. It is a by-product
of industrial reactions, and I think it caught the headlines
again in the Sevesio incident in north Italy, which was the
cause of Dioxin poisoning.
Q. Page 17, what was your assessment of this particular page?
A. Our assessment of this particular page was that it
described eleven different materials in terms that were not -
did not exclude what each and every one might be. In other
words, the materials described could be a very wide mixture
indeed.
Q. Is it possible to identify or to say that a combination of
some or all of these would make mustard gas? A. We reviewed
this list and came to the conclusion that you could indeed
produce mustard gas. The classical process used in history
to make mustard gas is a reaction of item 7, chlorine, item
9, sulphur to make a silver chloride, which in turn could
react with a material such as polythene, which is a plastic,
and item 10 certainly refers to plastics. If you react those
together at reasonable temperatures, less than the boiling
point of water, you can indeed produce mustard gas.
Q. Finally, supposing it was to be suggested to you, Dr. Pearson
that it would have been obvious at the very first glance that
this was all a joke, what would your reaction be? A. It is
certainly a document that has to be taken seriously. I
couldn't just look at it and say, "It is not credible". It
had to have very careful consideration before reaching any
verdict on it.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. BECKMAN
MR. BECKMAN: Would your Lordship allow me a minute? (Pause)
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Is it easy to tell us what might produce
Dioxin, or is that difficult? Do not worry if it is very
complicated. A. It is not as simple as the production of
mustard but it could be produced, depending on the
interpretation of what is meant by "industrial solvent" for
example.
Q. That which produced the Sevesio Dioxin, can that be done in a
sentence or two or is it very complicated? A. I think that
is rather complicated.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: All right, do not try. Thank you.
MR. BECKMAN: Dr. Pearson, you saw these documents on 1st April?
A. Correct.
Q. And they came from where? A. They came from the Central
Forensic Laboratory in New Scotland Yard.
Q. So they were coming to you for your greater expertise?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you give them a written report? A. Sorry, did we give
them ---?
Q. I gather I have to speak up. Let me know if in any way you
do not hear me, Dr. Pearson. Did you send them a written
report? A. I did send them a written report.
Q. Do you have that written report here? A. I have got a copy
here.
Q. May I see it? A. You may. This was produced in confidence
for the forensic laboratory.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Have you seen it, Mr. Temple?
MR. TEMPLE: No, my Lord, I have not. Dr. Pearson has made it
clear that this was an internal report produced as a result
of various conferences he and his colleagues had to
appreciate the validity or otherwise of the documentation.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Is there any reason why it should not be
seen? A. I think - if I may just check it very briefly.
Q. Yes, of course. Take your time, there is no rush at all.
A. My concern about why this report should not be shown is
that it does indicate how another person, if wishing to do
this again, could make it more credible and I am concerned
from the national security point of view. We don't provide
such ---
Q. Is its conclusion in any way different from what you told
us? A. None whatsoever.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Then you need not disclose it.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, the only basis upon which we would wish to
see it is on the basis of counsel and experts only and the
experts concerned would be in a position to have some
knowledge anyway.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: See how you get on with it and I will
decide later.
MR. BECKMAN: Certainly and I can explain to your Lordship ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: You have your own experts; I would not
think it is necessary.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, it relates directly to a matter your
Lordship will have to decide, and if it comes out one
particular way, the answer to one particular question, your
Lordship will have to deal with it.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: See how you get on.
MR. BECKMAN: Dr. Pearson, if of course this was practical - and
I am going to use the word "practical" - then it was a
terrifying threat and important and serious action had to be
taken? A. I did not use the words "terrifying threat". I
said this was a very credible threat and it needed to be
seriously considered. However, we did conclude that on
detailed examination we did not believe, from consideration
of the biological and chemical aspects, that the threat was
in fact intended.
Q. I am deliberately - I am not pretending to use your words, I
am using my own I can assure you, and if I in any way at any
time try and as it were wrap up your words in a different
way, I will tell you what I am doing. These are my words.
If that was a practical proposition, then you would agree it
was a terrifying threat and instant and important action had
to be taken? A. Yes.
Q. This is - of course, as far as you are concerned, a potential
wiping out of the Island of Cyprus in this fashion would be
catastrophic? A. I have not made any comments about whether
this device would potentially wipe out the Island of Cyprus.
We examined ---
Q. I am using my words - that note was virtually a threat to
wipe out the Island of Cyprus or do enormous damage; that
would be catastrophic? A. I have great difficulty with
your words "wipe out the Island of Cyprus".
Q. It would do immense harm to the people of the Island of
Cyprus if it was practical as described? A. It would
certainly create much alarm to the people of the Island of
Cyprus. The reason why I have difficulty with your words is
that the consequences of disseminating toxic materials into
the atmosphere very much depends on the wind and the wind
speed, and therefore the hazard is in the downwind area and
you cannot say it wipes the whole place out.
Q. The way I want to put it is this: if effectively what was
being said was to be taken seriously and that it could have
the effects that he described, then that would be a
catastrophe? A. Yes.
Q. And the possibility of that, if it was realistic, meant very
serious drastic action would have to be taken immediately?
A. I cannot comment on the response that had to be taken to
a document that made this sort of threat.
Q. The response must first of all, assuming it can be done - the
document says on the face of it and is said to be an outside
possibility - if it can be done then drastic steps must be
taken to prevent it happening. That must be right. A. I
feel I am not qualified to answer that question because I
cannot ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Is that a comment on the document?
MR. BECKMAN: The document effectively says the enormous damage
that would be done.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: You misunderstand me. Does the document
say that drastic steps must be taken or is that a comment by
you on the document?
MR. BECKMAN: I am inviting Dr. Pearson to say effectively if
this was a realistic possibility, namely that the effects
which the writer of the document said could take place, that
that would require drastic action to prevent.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: He said he could not comment on that.
It seems to be obvious that might be the reaction, but he
does not have to answer that.
MR. BECKMAN: Sobeit, my Lord. (To the witness): At any rate,
it was important that you told the authorities that be as
soon as possible whether this was a practical threat or
whether it was a lot of rubbish? A. That is certainly
correct.
Q. If it was a lot of rubbish, then you could tell them and
advise them, "You can ignore the alleged dangers"? A. We
could not guarantee that it was a load of rubbish. There was
enough credibility in what was there that it could be done,
but we gave our expert view that whilst a superficial review
suggested that the threat was real, our considered view was
that the document as presented lacked credibility.
Q. In other words, it could not be done? A. No, not that it
could not be done.
Q. No theoretical world threats as far as possible pollution but
one possibility - but in practical and realistic terms you
advised them there was no danger here? A. We did not
advise them there was no danger here; we said that our view
was that it appeared unlikely from this document that the
threat was as described but we couldn't say it was a load of
rubbish and we couldn't say, "There is no threat".
Q. Looking at it further, when you are answering are you
answering from the document or answering from the report
which at the moment I cannot see? A. All I am answering
from is - I am not reading anything from this (indicating).
This is the exhibit I have been handed.
Q. In any event, whatever you had to tell them so they could
take whatever steps they thought proper, they had to be told
as soon as possible? A. Correct.
Q. And you did give them a report which you told us on
2nd April? A. Correct.
Q. Did you give them any further report after that? A. Not
any further report after that.
Q. I take it because it was not necessary? A. We had produced
a comprehensive appraisal. We had responded to the
Metropolitan Police Forensic Laboratory. If they wanted
additional information we invited them to let us know.
Q. Effectively what happened to your knowledge, was it not, was
this: that effectively they were told, "There is no real
danger; you can now get down to the business of discovering
who the man is and apprehending him"? A. I was unaware of
what happened as a result of providing our report. No-one
came back to me to say what action was being taken or not
being taken.
Q. Did you not think that would be the logical result? A. I
was not party to all the information. I was unaware of the
circumstances under which this document had been provided; I
was unaware of the other activities and I was not in a
position to reach any view as to whether there was other
information which had not been passed to us for review which
indicated that this was a very real threat as indicated.
Q. Did you advise them and say, "Look, the danger is definitely
still there"? A. There is no way I ---
Q. Or did you say, "It is not worth the paper it is written on"?
A. All I was asked to do was give our expert view on this
document. It was not in the context of any other activity
that was going on. Consequently I was not aware of what
decision was taken by the authorities once they had received
our information.
Q. Dr. Pearson, you still had to say to them, "Look, there is
nothing here to worry about or you need not worry about it at
all". You had to say one or the other. A. We said in our
expert view this did not appear to be credible from the
detailed examination of the document. We could not rule out
the possibility; we could not guarantee that this might not
be a real threat.
Q. They came to your organisation as effectively if not - are
you perhaps the leading experts in the world in the sphere of
chemical and biological warfare? A. Correct.
Q. Effectively methods to wipe out quantities of persons,
animals and vegetation can be described --- A. Sorry, who
had?
Q. That is the expertise which is the particular expertise that
Porton Down has. A. We have expertise not to destroy
persons or animals. The United Kingdom had no offensive
chemical or biological capability. We are solely concerned
with the protection of the British armed forces against this
threat.
Q. Your personal qualifications in fact are - you are a Bachelor
of Science and a Doctor of Philosophy and I take it you have
held various other important appointments before you came to
Porton Down? A. Yes.
Q. It is clear in your organisation you call upon every possible
sphere of expertise? A. Yes.
Q. Including the chemical aspect and the electronic aspect?
A. We do not claim to be experts in electronics, although we
reviewed that with such knowledge as we had.
Q. You went into the electronics because the electronic aspect
was part and parcel of the study as to whether or not this
was a practical or feasible scheme? A. We did not comment
from the view of electronic expertise, we commented from a
view of our chemical, biological and physics of dispersion
expertise.
Q. Did anyone look at the electronic aspect? A. We at the
Chemical Defence Establishment did not do more than look at
what was in the document. For all we knew, other experts
were being invited to review the electronic aspect.
Q. So may I take it, therefore, that if I said to you that the
electronic aspect - and I shall come to it in a little more
detail later - that the electronic aspect was a load of
rubbish and self-evidently so to any ordinary expert within a
few minutes of reading, would you have any reason to
disagree? A. The words that were in the document about the
electronics were not phrased in such a way that we felt that
it sounded like rubbish. It sounded plausible. We have no
reason to disbelieve the words about the electronics although
we do not claim to be electronics experts.
Q. In that case I will take you through it later on. Do you
have individual reports from your experts as well as the
combined report that you have passed on to Scotland Yard?
A. Sorry, have I got ---?
Q. Are there individual reports which came from your separate
experts? A. I do not believe ---
Q. As well as the combined report you passed on? A. I do not
believe there are any formal reports. My recollection is
that at the end of the examination of this document we sat
round a table and reviewed our conclusions. I made some
notes on which I quoted that report to the forensic
laboratory.
Q. Would you agree with the statement that a large proportion
of the stuff that is there is schoolboy rubbish that is in
that so-called demand? A. Sorry, can you repeat that?
Q. Would you agree that one can describe the - once looked at
by experts, that the whole of it is a lot of schoolboy
rubbish? A. No.
MR. BECKMAN: The statement you gave is a very short one indeed;
correct?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: That is your statement given in August
1987. A. Yes, indeed.
MR. BECKMAN: Is the reason you gave such a short statement
because it - really the matter was so childish that it was
not worth a detailed investigation in your statement?
A. That was not the reason for the short statement.
Q. You refer in your statement to a careful assessment. Can
you tell me the names of the persons who did the careful
assessment of the chemical aspect? A. There were various
experts who were involved who have many years of expertise in
this area.
Q. Their names please. A. One expert is Professor Barass.
The other experts who were involved were Dr. Leadbetter and
Dr. Beswick.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: They are all part of the Establishment?
A. I am trying to recall who else was involved.
Q. These are all part of your establishment? A. They are
all part of my establishment.
MR. BECKMAN: Dealing with the medical aspect? A. Dr. Beswick
was dealing with the medical aspect.
Q. Physical dispersion? A. Physical dispersion was
Dr. Bartlett.
Q. Anyone else who was concerned in these enquiries? A. You
are actually asking my recollection of events two years ago.
To the best of my knowledge certainly these four. I cannot
swear that there was anyone else involved because we used
anybody's expertise we had available.
Q. That expertise in the totality and other information found
its way into the report that was passed on and it is that
report upon which you rely to give us evidence here?
A. Correct.
Q. In your statement you used this phrase: "Physical and
biological knowledge does not appear to be very expert". Was
that another way of saying it was childish nonsense? A. It
was not a way of saying it was childish nonsense. It was a
reference to the way in which the document was put together
and the way in which the words were used in the document.
Q. "Technical and other phrases used - technical and scientific
expressions might give rise to (inaudible)." Can I put it
another way: it is a lot of superficial knowledge picked out
of articles and magazines which might impress a layman but
not for any considerable period at all? A. It appeared to
have more credibility than the way in which you have
described it. It was put together with much more (inaudible)
and concentration, although the information could have come
from such sources.
Q. I will come to that later. More specifically, you used this
phrase: "a number of difficulties and inconsistencies" which
caused you to realise - these are my words - it was not
practical. What were those difficulties and inconsistencies
you discovered within the document itself? A. These were
in the document itself.
Q. What are they? A. To give you one example, on page 8 ---
Q. You mean on page 8 of the document or page 8 of the bundle?
A. Page 8 of the exhibit.
Q. Top right hand side? A. No, top right hand side page 3.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: That is our page 8. A. That page
talks about immediate effects of Phase I exposure. I have
already referred to the fact that paragraph 2 is a clear
indication of mustard gas through the vesicant action. The
inconsistencies come from the statement of immediate
blistering on the skin. Mustard gas did not produce
immediate blistering on the skin, it produces blistering
shortly after exposure. Again, statement No. 1, "Inhalation
even in very low doses causes rapid and painful death".
Mustard gas at low doses - and this interpretation of what is
meant by low doses - does not cause death immediately.
Mustard gas incapacitates people with these blisters, so it
was inconsistencies of that sort.
Q. Can you tell us the others? A. It is difficult to identify
each and every one of them.
Q. Can I put it this way - and I will give you a few examples
which may be in addition to the ones you found - can we say
this: that you found large numbers of inconsistencies and
difficulties which made you realise this in fact was not
practical? A. We certainly felt that a detailed appraisal
in depth did not add up to an extremely probable threat.
MR. BECKMAN: Apart from not an extremely probable threat, it was
a threat which was impossible - not only most unlikely, as
near to impossible as possible.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: If I may say so, that is not
particularly helpful. You have almost everything you need
apart from the fact your experts use the words "schoolboy
rubbish".
MR. BECKMAN: No, my Lord I am wrapping it up that way.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Then what you have said is comment.
You can make those comments in your speech.
MR. BECKMAN: No, my Lord.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Do not say "No" to me. Continue your
cross-examination.
MR. BECKMAN: With respect, my Lord, I am putting the case a
certain way. I am sorry if I preface a sentence ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Continue with your cross-examination.
MR. BECKMAN: May I respectfully disagree and explain later?
That is not the way the matter is put. (To the witness):
Let us come to terminology you used. The feasibility of
producing two chemicals in your words - the way described -
seems unlikely. Effectively you were saying impossible,
were you not, in reality? A. No, we were not saying
impossible. We had carefully reviewed - if we had carefully
reviewed the validation page and had come to the conclusion
it was imposssible [sic] on the ingredients set out, we would have
said so. What we have done is to review very carefully those
ingredients and we identified - because these ingredients
were not specific we identified ways in which these chemicals
could be produced.
Q. But the ways in which you identified the chemicals could be
produced are not ways that were indicated by the contents of
the letter; they are different, highly complicated and is
only produced in infinitisimal [sic] amounts. A. I do not believe
that is correct. We looked at what the document said. It
talked about reacting chemicals together that very much
resembled cooking, which is talking about heating things
together. We took that in mind and we recognised heating
some of these materials together - there is reference to
pressure in the document; it talks about pressure and a
temperature controlled catalytic chamber. We recognised
that pressure (inaudible) credible and capable of producing
these materials. After all, the document doesn't spell out
the nature of the materials, it refers to them as "Phase I"
and "Phase II". It doesn't seek to give explicit information
and I do not believe anyone could guarantee that it was not a
credible threat.
Q. Then how did you actually put it when you advised - we know
that you were not asked for any further advice; we know no
steps were taken apart from trying to arrest the man and
discover him. No steps were taken to deal with this as a
serious possibility. Can you tell us the precise terms of
advice that you gave? A. I would need to refer to the
words that I put in my report, if I may do that.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: You can certainly do that. A. The
precise words that we used were:
"This documentation had been carefully assessed,
paying particular attention to the chemical,
biological and physical dispersion aspects.
Our appreciation is that whilst the electronic
aspects appear to be reasonably substantiated,
the chemical, physical and biological knowledge
does not appear to be very expert."
Q. "The chemical, biological" - can you say that again?
A. The chemical, physical and biological knowlege [sic]
demonstrated in the document does not appear to be very
expert.
Q. Have you seen demand letters before in the course of your
work? A. I haven't seen demand letters of this sort before
in my work.
MR. BECKMAN: So that you did not take any notice of the fact on
the demand letter there was actually a reference?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: A what?
MR. BECKMAN: A reference, my Lord, CN/FM-PSK/CY. (To the
witness): You did not take notice of that? A. Which
reference, sorry?
MR. BECKMAN: The very first page there is actually a reference,
Dr. Pearson. I understand that letter was probably not sent
to you and I accept that.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Just look at it in case I do not know
the meaning of it; it is page 5. A. That page 5 was not
actually passed to us. The document was passed from page 6
onwards.
MR. BECKMAN: Would your Lordship forgive me? (Pause) This
is the phrase. Looking at page 1, page 6 of the bundle.
"There are two man-made compounds which are
particularly toxic and harmful to humans.
They are easily created from everyday industrial
raw materials and household products. They can
both be made and deployed together with only a
rudimentary knowledge of chemistry."
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Just a minute; page 6 at the bottom
right hand corner?
MR. BECKMAN: Do you have it?
"There are two man-made compounds which are
particularly toxic and harmful to humans.
They are easily created from everyday industrial
raw materials and household products. They can
both be made and employed together with only a
rudimentary knowledge of chemistry."
(To the witness): That is just nonsense, is it not?
A. Unfortunately, that is not true. The route to produce
mustard gas is not a particularly difficult process.
Q. Are you saying, Dr. Pearson - because we will then disagree
strongly - they are easily created? They are easily created
from ordinary household products? They can both be made and
deployed together with only a rudimentary knowledge of
chemistry? Are you saying those are valid statements? A. I
am saying that the process of making mustard gas is not
particularly complicated, and it is for that reason that
mustard gas has proliferated around the world - Iraq, Iran.
As to a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry, there is a
certain hazard in making Dioxin chemicals but that could be
taken (inaudible) in this sort of document because it is all
about the Dioxin hazard. You do not have to be a very
clever chemist to make mustard gas. Dioxin, I would accept,
is a somewhat more complicated gas.
Q. Do you accept or reject these two statements: (1) they are
easily created from everyday industrial raw materials and
household products? They can both be made and deployed
together with only a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry? Do
you say those are valid statements; yes or no? A. If I can
divide the two statements: "easily created from everyday
industrial raw materials" is certainly true for mustard gas,
and "rudimentary knowledge of chemistry", I believe that is
broadly correct.
Q. Mustard gas but not Dioxin. In what quantities mustard gas
in this method, the method described in the document, not
some other theoretical method? A. We certainly believe you
can make some milligrammes of this material in this way in
reasonable purity.
Q. In sufficient quantities to be a genuine threat to the Island
of Cyprus? A. In sufficient quantity to meet the statement
made in this document, which referred to a dissemination
device. It did not refer to the quantity used to hazard the
Island of Cyprus.
Q. I asked you a question: would this way of production, which
you say is feasible from these two sentences, would that be
capable of producing sufficient quantity to be actually a
threat to the Island of Cyprus, of mustard gas? A. I was
asked to assist on the consistency of this document and I am
saying I believe the methods described are feasible and to
make the quantities required to make this document credible.
Q. Can you answer my question: would this method produce
sufficient quantity to be a threat to the Island of Cyprus?
A. We have argued before about the threat to the Island of
Cyprus and I have explained that it is about the downwind
hazard, and I said I believe you can produce it in sufficient
quantity to meet the requirement of this document.
Q. The requirement of the document contained an enormous threat
to the Island of Cyprus. Would the amount of mustard gas
that could be created in this way actually be a serious
threat to the Island of Cyprus? It is a simple question,
Dr. Pearson, to which there should be a simple answer.
A. Unfortunately, the document does not distinguish between
Phase I and Phase II. Phase II is much more long lasting.
As the document says, Phase I will create a hazard in the
downwind area from the point at which it has been generated,
and that entirely depends on the wind speed and wind
direction. I am not able to ---
Q. May I ask you this most gently: do you really want to answer
the question? A. I am trying to answer the question
honestly and comprehensively. I am not in the business of
making extravagant statements.
Q. Not extravagant statements. Can I take it, therefore, that
it follows if you talk about extravagant you are saying from
those two suggestions contained in those two sentences enough
could be created for the purpose of doing tremendous harm to
Cyprus, which is the extravagant threat, if it is a valid
one, which is what we are examining? A. We certainly
couldn't rule every possibility out.
MR. BECKMAN: Can we now go to this statement, this is on page 7.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Page 12, bottom right hand corner.
MR. BECKMAN: "The size of a PIG is variable; the same module can
process 1 litre or 1,000 litres of Di-Tox B." If it was
a container capable of producing ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Just a minute, I think you have the
wrong page.
MR. BECKMAN: Page 7 at the top, page 12 at the bottom.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Second paragraph. A. Thank you very
much.
MR. BECKMAN: "The size of a PIG is variable; the same module can
process 1 litre or 1,000 litres of Di-Tox B7." If you
produced 1,000 litres, then the weight of the contents alone
would have to be 1 ton or a metric tonne. A. From 1,000
litres, yes.
Q. You would then have to add on the weight of the pressurised
container; correct? A. Yes.
Q. So that the result would not be some tiny little thing but
something large, heavy and awkward, which would have to be
specially manufactured; correct? A. The statement says,
"The size of the PIG is variable", which implied it is not
necessarily just a 1,000 litre size; it could be smaller.
Q. It could be, but let us assume this is a 1,000 litre size,
let us take (inaudible), am I correct in what I put?
A. Sorry?
Q. Am I correct in what I put to you? A. You are correct in
what you are saying.
Q. Then when you go further down - I think you have dealt with
this already - you remember the statement that anyone within
the vicinity is instantly killed. That, I think, you have
dealt with already. That was a typical layman's attitude and
was obviously quite wrong. A. Can you just re-state that?
Q. Anyone in the vicinity is instantly killed; that is part of
the terminology in the statement. That is obviously wrong,
is it not? A. There is an assumption in there as to just
how the material is disseminated.
Q. Exactly, it can depend. It is only in its dust form physical
contact becomes dangerous. A. It also becomes a danger
through inhalation, through ingestion, through breathing it
in.
Q. Di-Tox B7, does that mean anything to you? A. Di-Tox B7
did not mean anything to us.
Q. It sounds more like the sort of thing you see (inaudible).
A. It is just a term, obviously.
Q. It is a term which is a term which might impress a layman but
means nothing at all to a scientist? A. It might be a term
chosen to create alarm.
MR. BECKMAN: I am talking about a scientist.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: He said it does not mean anything to
him.
THE WITNESS: It doesn't mean anything to a scientist.
MR. BECKMAN: Let us look at the combination of things we have.
We go to page 17, page 12 at the top. Just so that we know
what these items are, these are the principal ingredients
you referred to: one, washing soda, that is sodium
carbonate? A. Correct.
Q. The next item is antifreeze and that is used in your BMW.
I suppose that caused some amusement when you read it?
A. That is something like (inaudible) glycol.
Q. I take it when you read "as used in your BMW", it caused
amusement? A. The terminology appeared to be terminology
to explain to a layman what they are talking about.
Q. We are talking about the effect on experts because in the
document he refers to experts being invited to look at it.
A. But this is not for experts.
Q. In the document there is an invitation there to the people to
let experts see it. I will bring you to it. A. I agree
there is a phrase in the document, "Show it to your experts",
and it is clear the document is written primarily for the
layman. Additionally, the previous page says, "The layman
may be excused for thinking".
Q. Or be amused by the reference to the BMW. Let us go on.
A. It did not give us any particular amusement. This was a
serious threat.
MR. BECKMAN: Antifreeze is glycol, is it not?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: He said it is (inaudible) glycol.
MR. BECKMAN: It has been recently found in German wine. Dry
cleaning fluid, that is tricochlorine [sic]? A. There is a whole
range of material to that scene.
Q. Disinfectant would probably be phenol? A. Phenol or perhaps
trichlophenol.
Q. It says "used in every hospital". They are no longer used
in hospitals, are they? A. There are some such disin-
fectants used in hospital. I don't know precisely what.
Q. Refrigeration liquid which keeps your food fresh. A. This
may be ammonia or sulphur dioxide or (inaudible).
Q. Industrial solvent; that is what it says. A. It can be a
wide range of materials; they are absolutely unlimited.
MR. BECKMAN: Salt is sodium chloride.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: You missed out chlorine.
MR. BECKMAN: Chlorine, my Lord, is chlorine.
THE WITNESS: Okay, salt is sodium chloride.
MR. BECKMAN: Sulphur is sulphur, and plastic --- A. Again it
is a non-specific term and likewise industrial acid can be a
range of acids.
Q. If you combine any two of these, the worst you get is a
gentle (inaudible). A. I believe you could get probably a
more violent reaction between things like sulphur and
chlorine, but I would not claim to be an expert on that.
Chlorine itself is toxic.
Q. Chlorine itself of course if not incredibly well controlled
would destroy everything else anyway, would it not? A. I
am sorry?
Q. Chlorine would destroy other components, would it not?
Other chemicals, chlorine would have that effect?
A. Chlorine could react with the sulphur, as I indicated
before, to produce effectively sulphur chloride, which could
then react with the plastic and could be used to produce
sulphur mustard.
Q. If in fact you heated in combination all these, as suggested
by the document, would anything of consequence happen?
A. Sorry, if you heated in combination?
Q. If you heated in combination all these, would anything of
consequence happen, just by virtue of heating them? A. You
certainly would have a reaction.
Q. You would not create mustard gas or dioxin? A. You would
have to heat it together, perhaps under pressure as it
indicates on that same page, pressure and a temperature
controlled catalytic controlled chamber perhaps ---
Q. Just the heating, I am sorry. You cannot put it together in
the same pot and heat it together, could you? A. You would
not try and put it in the same pot and heat it together.
Q. Unlike cooking suggested there, just housewife cooking, you
would have to have extremely different conditions for each of
the components before mixing together in the right sort of
way, perfect laboratory conditions before you begin to
produce anything at all remotely toxic. A. Housewife
cooking does not all take place in the saucepan, it does take
place in different conditions, and here you can take
materials, put them together, let them react and then do a
specimen reaction in a separate container.
Q. You have heard (inaudible) as seems to be suggested, and I
will come to it, put it in a pot and just cook it and make
it, can you? A. The point we have tried to make clear is
the document is non-specific in what it says. It does not
set out what is done or is not done to produce Di-Tox B7.
We have to make the best possible assumption based on the
document, but what might be in the mind of the person writing
it and preparing this paper.
Q. So you were looking into his mind rather than examining
whether or not it is practical? A. No, we were assessing
the information here, but I have said before it is not
exclusive, it does not cut out options, it talks in terms we
have ingredients like industrial solvent, plastic base,
cooking, temperature controlled, and you cannot exclude
certain circumstances, you cannot rule out this could be used
in the way described.
Q. You refer to the making of this mustard gas. Would it not be
right the chlorine required for the dioxin would destroy
mustard gas? A. Sorry?
Q. Sulphur chlorine you require for dioxin destroys mustard
gas. A. There would be no necessity to have such circum-
stances in which chlorine would destroy the mustard gas. I
do not see why chlorine should destroy it either.
MR. BECKMAN: Here we have a cooking pot. If I can take you to
page 1:
"Di-Tox B7 will be made in specially designed
reaction chambers as a nucleated, microscopic
particle suspended in hot toxic gas" ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Just a minute. Page 6 at the bottom,
which paragraph?
MR. BECKMAN: Five.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: What is the question?
MR. BECKMAN: Read it first.
"Di-Tox B7 will be made in specially designed
reaction chambers as a nucleated, microscopic
particle suspended in hot toxic gas."
(To the witness): Assuming 1,000 litres was going to be
heated in hot toxic gas, what container would you require?
A. I cannot give you an instant answer to that statement.
As I have indicated, the document doesn't give precise
instructions as to how to create (inaudible). I simply
couldn't rule out the possibility that the procedure
described could indeed by carried out.
Q. So you have no idea how large the heating equipment would
have to be, the heat source? A. We can certainly calculate
it, but there was little point in calculating it, but one
sees that it is already said in the document that it can vary
from 1 litre to 1,000 litres.
Q. Are you saying the basis of the examination is each item
only had a litre and not 1,000 litres; we can ignore the
thousand litres? A. We looked at what the document said,
we looked at the imprecision that was in the document and we
made the best possible assumption based on the information
in there, and we could not rule out the possibility that this
was a real threat.
Q. You keep on saying that, but let us try and give specifics.
If it was 1,000 litres you cannot say what heating equipment
was required, you cannot say the size of the container, but
would this be right: if you were talking about 1,000 litres
or large quantities you would need tons and tons of the
stuff, would you not? You would need enormous (inaudible)
over an island 170 by 140 miles approximately? A. The
space occupied by a ton is about 1 metre by 1 metre by 1
metre, not a particularly large space occupied by a metre,
and it entirely depends on the way in which these reaction
chambers are designed to produce these hot toxic gases.
There is obviously heating in there but there is no
suggestion it is necessarily blown out ---
Q. But, Dr. Pearson --- A. --- so I cannot assume it is vast
in that it needs cranes to carry what ---
Q. (Inaudible). A. I said 1 ton, to cite your example,
occupies a space of 1 metre by 1 metre by 1 metre, and I am
saying in order to vapourise [sic] some of that you would need a
simple pump system on the edge of it, which draws it up and
sprays it out into the atmosphere.
Q. You are going to have these items and assume they are all
over Cyprus, taken there and merely put into place by leaving
them hidden underground or wherever. A. It says "between 1
and 1,000 litres"; it does not say they are all 1,000 litres.
As I said before, the document is imprecise in what it says.
There is a whole range of sizes that are possible.
Q. How heavy - this pressure vessel we are referring to, how
much will it weigh? Many tons, will it not? A. There is
not enough information to tell whether the whole thing is a
pressure vessel or whether it is a pressure vessel on the
edge of a disseminating device.
Q. You now suggest that this can be done by something resembling
cooking? You now suggest it is easy? A. I suggest that
the amount of mixture that you need in order to produce
mustard gas is not very complicated.
Q. Let us look at the terminology. Page 12 of the document,
17 of the bundle, which is the bundle I referred to earlier.
These basic chemicals are reacting together in a process that
very much resembles cooking to produce the liquids that
Di-Tox B7 is actually made from. Would it not be right to
say that the idea that to produce anything at all (the toxic
substance referred to) by a process resembling cooking is
laughable, it is a joke? A. I did indicate before that the
process to produce mustard gas is regrettably very straight-
forward and is not unduly complicated.
Q. Is it a process that resembles cooking? A. I suppose in
layman's terms you would say yes.
Q. You would say yes? A. In layman's terms I think you would
say yes.
Q. Would it not be right that you may as well put together a
whole lot of nuts and bolts and spare pieces in a can, shake
it and you will make a motor car? A. I would not agree
with that statement.
Q. Or bricks and mortar and fixtures and fittings, put in
another box, shake it and make a house? A. As I said
before, we did our assumption of this - it is an imprecise
document. We had to take into account all possible
information about the materials in it to give our best
considered assumption. I have said before we could not rule
it out there was anything in here that enabled us to say
should be ignored.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Each question asked gets the same
answer.
MR. BECKMAN: I think the questions have been more specific.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: If you ask a question you will get the
same answer.
MR. BECKMAN: No, my Lord, I have been specific in my questions.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Go on.
MR. BECKMAN: Very well, my Lord, I will come on to electronics.
(To the witness): Would you agree with this statement: it
does not appear to be at all plausible, although literal
mnemonics (inaudible) any competent electronics engineer
would have been able to perceive that the electronic aspects
in the demand were far from plausible and they would appear
to be the work of either an imaginative person or persons
with a clear lack of knowledge of the technical language?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Is that electronics only?
MR. BECKMAN: Yes, my Lord, I referrred [sic] it to electronics. I
said that directly.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: You have asked about that.
MR. BECKMAN: Would you agree that that is a fair description?
A. I have indicated - do you want me to say whether I agree
with the statement?
Q. Yes. A. As I indicated before, we did not claim to be
expert in electronics, but we read what was in there and
there was nothing there that appeared impossible or
implausible to us.
Q. Then --- A. I mean, the words in the document appear
entirely feasible. We did not claim to be experts in
electronics.
Q. Maybe, but I will have to deal with it as you are the only
expert, but I will deal with it shortly and if the answer is
"No", you can say it. If the electronic aspect was a waste
of time everything failed? A. If the electronic aspect was
not feasible, but I cannot comment on that, obviously the
rest of the threat goes with it.
Q. So let us see; would you agree with this phrase, with this
sentence: the naming of the devices is typical of
imagination run riot, perhaps after reading a few advertise-
ments and a few radio magazines and a few leaflets of the
sort you see on the stands of companies like GEC, Marconi,
Plessey at electronic exhibitions? A. I cannot say that
this is limited to that expertise. It certainly has a
statement in here that appeared entirely plausible, about
security precautions to electronic systems.
Q. If I suggest this very firmly and very advisedly, that if
you look at the scheme you realise, if you have any expertise
at all, that there is no technical reality about it. A. I
am not able to make that statement. As I said before, we
looked at this and no-one who looked at it said that the
electronics to them made no sense in my establishment.
MR. BECKMAN: Take, for example, on page 2 of the item itself,
where it refers to REC-3, Remote Electronic Command,
Communications and Control System ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Just let us find it. If you are going
to put a long statement let us find the right page. Which
page at the bottom?
MR. BECKMAN: I had referred to it, I am sorry, page 7 of the
bundle, page 2 of the document.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Which paragraph?
MR. BECKMAN: I was about to say, the first paragraph. REC-3,
which is there said to refer to Remote Electronic Command,
Communications and Control System. (To the witness): This
is the sort of phraseology you find in leaflets and pamphlets
everywhere, is it not? A. It is the sort of phraseology
you certainly see in military systems, yes.
Q. Let us look at that. There is a phrase there:
"REC-3 is built to military specifications
and features compact size, key circuit
duplication, redundancy and independent
backed up power supplies."
A. It is entirely plausible; no reason to disbelieve it.
Q. That sounds, on the face of it to the layman, impressive and
sophisticated, right? A. Correct.
Q. But the moment it is suggested you can get this via mail
order you realise what nonsense it all is, do you not?
A. Where is the suggestion about mail order?
Q. Mail order suggested page 11. It is dealing with the items -
16 of the bundle, 11 of the document, fourth paragraph:
"In reality the task is even simpler; buy a
few foreign electronics, computer and radio
magazines, look through them carefully and
you will find everything required ready made
and for sale by mail order."
Are you saying that that military specification electronics
system can be discovered, bought from mail order? A. It
is not impossible because certainly such devices can be
purchased and are used for this sort of ---
Q. To create the electronic system suggested in this letter?
Really? A. From reading the letter there was no reason
to doubt, from the words said, this was not in fact
plausible.
Q. Let us have a look at something else to see if I can change
your view or you get to use different terminology. At page
11 we have the phrase - (pause). If you look at the bottom
paragraph of page 7, page 2 of the document, last paragraph,
there again you have:
"REC built to military specification and
features compact size, key circuit duplication,
redundancy and independent backed up power
supplies."
Compare that with page 7 at the top, paragraph 2, last
sentence: This method eliminates pumps, heavy batteries and
mechanical failures." These two are totally inconsistent,
are they not? A. I think the second sentence that you
referred to on page 7 is a statement about the PIG, which is
the generator of the poison, whereas the statement on page -
the statement about the REC-3 and remote operating terminal
and general area master, there is two different parts to it
being discussed. Pumps, heavy batteries and mechanical
failures would apear [sic] from this position on page 7 to be about
how the Di-Tox B7 is disseminated, whereas the other
statement would appear to be about the command mechanism
electronics which tell that system to start disseminating.
Q. It depends on the same electronics system you are saying
effectively? A. I am saying the statement on page 7 does
not appear to be a statement about an electronic system.
Q. What you are saying is that relates to the methods whereby
the pressure is kept up or something of that sort? A. Page
2 appears to be about electronics.
Q. REC-3 is the whole system, is it not? A. Sorry?
Q. REC-3 is the whole system. A. I agree, the whole system.
Q. Do you recall this phrase used in the report:
"This does not mean that a lunatic terrorist
group could not make a fucking nuisance of
themselves by mixing up this deadly cocktail
in a bathtub and setting it off with a tin can
alarm clock."
Did you read that? A. No. Well, if it is in the document
I certainly read it.
MR. BECKMAN: That had no effect upon you at all? It is there in
the document. I will see if I can find the page for you.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Page 16.
MR. BECKMAN: Page 11 of the document, 16 of the bundle, the
penultimate paragraph. A. What are you asking me to
comment on there?
Q. I am asking you whether or not you - did you make anything
of that paragraph at all? A. We took all the paragraphs
into consideration. That paragraph was about what might be
done by a lunatic terrorist group; it was not central to this
specific threat.
Q. Did you give serious consideration to that paragraph?
A. We certainly considered all of them.
Q. I think in more than one place in this document - I can find
it for you if you like - the system REC-3 is described as a
highly sophisticated, complex system built to military
specifications. Did any of your people say, "That is an
accurate description; this is a highly sophisticated system
built to military specifications"? A. We could not make
such a statement because there is no details in this document
in order to reach an independent view. There are other
statements in the document on which we can proceed.
Q. Let us look at a very simple example; page 11 of the
document, 16 of the bundle. Bear this in mind, this is
accepted to be an electronics system controlling from
overseas. Let us examine that. That is what it is meant to
do. He has given three items which would be used for the
purpose. A. The items are just a small example, as he
points out.
Q. Let us have a look at the small example, because this is
meant to be effective, it is meant to be realistic - a
cordless telephone. The range of a cordless telephone - the
only purpose of that could be electronic control. The range
of a cordless telephone what, a maximum of 200 metres?
A. That is a typical cordless telephone. As I said before,
I do not claim to be an expert on electronics.
Q. Countries overseas to Cyprus is Turkey, which is about 60
miles away, or Lebanon, 120 miles away. That is the nearest
to Cyprus. A. But the point is there is also Citizen Band
and taxi band radio transceivers.
MR. BECKMAN: Dr. Pearson I will deal with them. Turkey is 60
miles away.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: He does not say these things are going
to be used. "The list goes on; the point is to snip out the
bits we need and put them together." It may be a lot of
rubbish. Nobody is saying, "We are going to set it off by a
cordless telephone".
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: You may make these comments to the jury,
they are perfectly valid, but I do not think it will help
to put them to the witness. He has told you over and over
again electronic expertise in his department is almost non-
existent, but it is an ordinary layman's appreciation.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, I am aware of that but ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: If you insist you are going to go on I
suppose you can, but it does seem to me it is a waste of
time. You have experts who will assist the jury with their
view of this and that is valuable evidence from their point
of view. Dr. Pearson has said repeatedly he is not
attempting to give an electronic assessment at all.
MR. BECKMAN: No, but he has some knowledge. He went on ahead
of me to suggest the way in which it could be done when I
asked about the mileage of the nearest country, 60 or 120
miles away.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Very well. I shall stop you, but for
the moment you can ask questions.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, I am sure your Lordship will hear me first
before you do. (To the witness): Dealing with your
suggestion, the Citizen Band radio range of 15 to 20
miles --- A. The point I was simply making is I have said
before I am not an electronics expert. However, the list
down on page 11, it pointed out only a small example is
indicated. The technology is there and you cannot rule it
out.
Q. Let me interrupt you, Dr. Pearson. As you appreciate, the
learned judge is anxious to get on. If we can deal with
specifics and leave Mr. Temple to deal with the generalities
later we will get through it quickly. Can we go through
these specific points I have carefully arranged? The
Citizen's Band radio, 15 to 20 miles, that large an area?
A. I cannot say it is limited to 15 to 20 miles.
Q. Thirty miles in good conditions, that large an area? A. I
have said, I am not an expert on that subject.
Q. It would have to be placed on top of a mountain: you cannot
answer that? A. I am not an expert on the subject of
electronics.
Q. Would it be right you have some level of electronics experts
at Porton Down? A. We do not claim to have electronics
experts at Porton Down. There are other Ministry of Defence
establishments which have electronics experts.
Q. For example, GHQ, Cheltenham? A. That was not Ministry of
Defence. I was referring to the Royal Signals (inaudible).
Q. If I suggested long range, for example in Turkey, Cyprus and
Lebanon, long range radio conditions are not good (inaudible)
60 to 120 miles. A. We did not attempt to assess that part
of the electronics. As I said before, we looked at what was
said on the electronics and there was no reason to say it was
rubbish what was written in the document.
Q. Would you know this; radio communication is limited to a
very narrow point of frequencies, between 2 and 7 megahertz
approximately. Did you know that? A. No.
Q. Would it be - any possible signal would be terribly easy to
discover because of the limited range between 2 and 7
megahertz. A. I am not sufficiently of an expert to be
able to deny or agree with that statement.
Q. Page 7, paragraph 4, when he says, "Your experts think they
know what frequency band we are on". It would be the easiest
thing for any electronics radio engineer at all to be able to
discover it between 2 and 7 megahertz. A. I am not an
expert and I cannot comment.
Q. Then going on:
"Have they considered that we might be using
military, commercial or civil satellites which
between them broadcast and relay from longwave
through to microwave?"
That is absolute nonsense on the face of it, is it not?
A. The words that were being used indicated knowledge of
frequency bands and wavelengths. It was not specific, but
it was suggesting it was intended. It appeared to suggest
that this was credible.
Q. I am suggesting as a matter of fact that is absolute nonsense
because satellites only work from a high frequency to micro-
wave, 310 megahertz and nothing lower. A. As I say, I am
not an expert.
Q. Are you aware of the fact anyone controlling satellites,
seeing any misuse of it at all, would immediately switch off
the channel and they are well controlled? A. I am not an
electronics expert.
Q. All right, I will go quicker. I take it you cannot tell us
anything at all about a TNC unit being the heart of the GAM,
which is referred to on page 11 at the top and page 16 at the
bottom, fourth paragraph? You cannot tell us anything about
a TNC unit being the heart of the GAM? A. No.
Q. These are available anywhere. A. I am not an electronics
expert.
MR. BECKMAN: You do not know they are controlled by (inaudible)?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Mr. Beckman, if you go on asking
questions about electronics it is hopeless, which simply
confuses the important point of it.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, the point is to be able to show that this
was a lot of ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I know, but you can call your evidence
as to that. This doctor has told us he is not an expert in
electronics. The last five questions have gone completely
over the top of my head. Do you expect me to have written
down the questions you asked at that speed? He has answered
in each case that he is not an expert in electronics, and
that was a waste of time.
MR. BECKMAN: I was going faster to get through it to give an
indication of the totality of things, which show any expert
looking as this would realise ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: You can call your evidence to prove it.
That is going to be part of your case if it goes to evidence,
but please listen to what I directed you; do not ask
questions about electronics.
MR. BECKMAN: Might I deal with that, my Lord, because the
prosecution also have certain matters they have to prove in
relation to what is allegedly the second demand and the state
of knowledge at the time of the second demand. You will be
aware of the law on the subject and if what is said in the
second demand - it may be considered by your Lordship to be a
copy of the document in Cyprus; what is the state of mind,
whether (inaudible).
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I am grateful for that speech. Would
you ask the next question, not on electronics.
MR. BECKMAN: Forgive me, it was not a speech. Would your
Lordship please bear with me?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Will you please get on and ask the
questions which you are perfectly entitled on the chemical
side of what the doctor has told the jury.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, Dr. Pearson is put forward as an expert
who has examined this as to feasibility in order to report
the matter back. There are certain ramifications which
follow and therefore he is the only person who can deal with
it in relation to the prosecution case. That is why I asked
Dr. Pearson to deal with the matter. That is why I want to
speed through it, which of course inhibited - I will have to
put points to see if he can answer.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Get on, please.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, the doctor has said ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Mr. Beckman, do stop. Please ask the
questions, as you are entitled and as I invited you to do.
You are not helping your client's case.
MR. BECKMAN: I am sorry, my Lord, but it is said this is a
feasible plan and for any show it is absolutely not feasible
within the prosecution case. Certain consequences obviously
follow. I must be in a position to do that and this is the
gentleman who has dealt with the feasibility of the plan.
(To the witness): All right, I have a lot here so I may take
it that it was - if you are saying then, Dr. Pearson, that
you considered, you gave your particular view, may we take
this, that at no time whatsoever to your knowledge was this
matter considered to be sufficiently serious to go to even an
amateur electronics engineers, if necessary more expert in
the country? It was never considered necessary? A. The
Chemical Defence Establishment and I were asked to comment on
this paper from the chemical and biological aspects. We were
asked to do that by the Metropolitan Police because all our
expertise is in the area of chemical and biological warfare.
That is what we did, and we simply looked at all the words
in the whole document and we saw no reason in which to reject
the electronics element. It was not up to us to take this
document to further bodies. It came to us very much in
confidence directly from the forensic science laboratory and
as far as we were concerned we didn't know who else they
were consulting.
Q. Can I just put this to you then - if you can, Dr. Pearson,
would you be kind enough to answer it immediately - as far as
you are aware, unless it has been done carefully - and there
is no expert produced at all - as far as you are aware, the
matter was not considered sufficiently serious to be put to
an electronics expert. Can you answer that simple question,
yes or no? A. I have said before I was not aware of what
further action was taken once I had provided my report on
2nd April. I am not aware of any further action.
Q. Did you in your advice say, "This is our answer so far as the
chemical aspect is concerned, but you had better look at the
electronics because they might be feasible"? Did you say
that? A. Did I say ---?
Q. Did you, with your advice, say, "Look, there is the
possibility the chemical aspect could work; you had better
look at the electronics very carefully to see if the thing is
feasible or a waste of time"? A. We did not make a comment
on the electronics. We were asked to advise on the chemical,
biological and physics dispersion aspects. That is what we
advised on.
Q. Dr. Pearson, I have heard that. Let me now get on to some-
thing else. Were you asked from your viewpoint to look at
the question - in that there is a certain amount on the
delivery of dollar bills and certain suggestions made by the
prosecution, was anyone from your establishment asked to
work out the weight of dollar bills to see if it worked out
with any theory, defence or prosecution? A. We certainly
looked at what weights might be produced and we looked at
what hazard clouds could be produced if dismantled, but as I
have said before ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Just ask the question again, would you?
MR. BECKMAN: There is a theory put forward by the prosecution in
relation to the method of delivering money.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: This is something quite different,
Dr. Pearson. He is not dealing with the chemical side at
all. There is a suggestion that some money was going to be
removed from Cyprus and there are documents which you may not
have seen which deal with the possible weight of the dollar
bills. A. I have not seen this.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Mr. Beckman is going to ask questions
about it.
MR. BECKMAN: Put it this way: if I put to you any questions
about the availability of dollar bills, you would not know
the answer? A. I would not know the answer.
Q. If I put to you the total weight of dollar bills would be -
would not exceed 30 milligrammes, you would not be able to
answer that? A. I am not aware of that aspect.
Q. Did you look at the Digby [sic] telex? That would be on page 3 of
the bundle. Did you look at the Digsby telex? You may not
have been shown the Digsby telex. A. No, I have not seen
this one before.
Q. In other words, you were not asked about it. Perhaps I can
ask you because it comes within your particular expertise
anyway; I will not ask you about terminology. It there
refers to proton. Perhaps you would read it to yourself
first of all. (Pause) A. I have read the document. It is
a request to ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Do not worry to whom it is addressed at
the moment because that does not concern you.
MR. BECKMAN: What is proton? Would it be right a proton
magnatometer [sic] is a device for detecting some changes in the
earth's magnetic field? A. I am not an electronics expert.
Once again you are asking me about that.
Q. Very well, I will leave that. Just putting it in a nutshell,
that is this: that such use of a proton magnatometer [sic] is
nonsense, you would not be able to say that such use is
totally impracticable? A. I am certainly aware in general
knowledge that you can detect the presence of buried metal
objects by magnatometers [sic] flown overhead, but I do not claim
to know what a proton magnatometer [sic] is.
Q. You would not, therefore, say one thing or another. If I
suggested such a use of a proton magnatometer [sic] is nonsence [sic],
you would not be able to know one way or the other? A. I
could not comment whether it is false or otherwise. It
sounds plausible.
MR. BECKMAN: (Pause) Would your Lordship allow me a moment?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON Yes.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, on the face of these matters, bearing in
mind the fact Dr. Pearson is not able to answer anything on
the electronics side and I have dealt with the chemical side,
my Lord, the other thing is this document which is of great
importance to the circumstances of the case is based on -
your Lordship will appreciate I have behind me expertise
assisting me in the matters not otherwise known, but the way
I would deal with it, not disclosing it to my client - that
is, I shall look at it with Mr. Temple and only deal with
such matters ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: You can only deal with it in cross-
examining the witness.
MR. BECKMAN: Yes, only in cross-examining the witness. That
will not go any further, subject to any agreement between
Mr. Temple and myself.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: When are you going to do that?
MR. BECKMAN: I would like to do it very quickly.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: All right, you can look at it now.
(To the witness): You can show it to him on the basis that
it is only shown to the experts and counsel. Are you
prepared to do that, Dr. Pearson? A. I believe that would
be acceptable. There are particular paragraphs in it on
which there is sensitivity.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I understand that. Ordinarily I would
not insist on your producing it, but I think you had better.
Let it be handed to counsel so that they and the experts can
look at it.
MR. BECKMAN: Would your Lordship retire for a short time because
then not only can I discuss it with my experts, but ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Yes.
(The trial was adjourned for a short time)
GRAHAM PEARSON: Recalled
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, I am very much obliged to your Lordship
for allowing time, which has enabled the prosecution and
myself to agree the extent to which the report should
properly be in our hands and considered. In due course, if
it arises, expert evidence can be given on our behalf dealing
with the contents of the matter.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Yes.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, that being so, there is no need, in view
of the traffic problems, for me to cross-examine further.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: No. Thank you. (To the witness):
Dr. Pearson, I must simply ask you to trust me to see that
that report is kept within the confines of the people to whom
you have very kindly agreed to release it. I am grateful to
you because I am not sure that you needed to release it.
Thank you very much. Do you have any re-examination,
Mr. Temple?
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, I have none.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Dr. Pearson, I am very grateful to you.
You have been there for quite a long time. I am grateful for
your evidence and I hope that the hue and cry to try and get
you here earlier has not caused you any inconvenience.
(The witness withdrew)
(The trial was adjourned until Thursday, 22nd June, 1989)
Index | Previous | Next