Ref: A00-300995 Case No. 871626 Macpherson II
Volume VIII, Pages 14-73, Friday 23rd June, 1989
(In the presence of the jury)
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. TEMPLE
Q. Mr. Koupparis, would you have in front of you, please, a copy
of the document bundle. I want to ask you a little bit about
your document because you have covered a lot of it. Do you
regard the fact that you have an 'O' level in chemistry as a
qualification? A. It is an 'O' level qualification.
Q. It is a qualification? A. Yes.
Q. Apart from studying chemistry to that comparatively modest
level, have you ever been on any course at polytechnic or any
other academy of learning where you went on a chemistry
course? A. No, I haven't participated in any further
education concerning chemistry.
Q. Are you saying that your sole qualification in chemistry is
the fact that you have an 'O' level? A. Yes.
Q. And you did not study chemistry in any shape or form after
you left school? A. Well, I have kept myself familiar with
scientific development. There's various things I need to
know for my work on the physical side, so that does cover a
little bit of chemistry theory.
Q. Does that same general explanation apply to electrical
matters during the course of your employment, principally
with Alcom, you kept yourself abreast of electrical matters?
A. I have never actually been employed by Alcom as an
employee; I was always a consultant for them.
Q. The question was, did you tend to keep yourself informed as
to electronic matters? A. Yes.
Q. So really it comes to this, does it not, that you do have a
very basic knowledge of chemistry and an even baser knowledge
of electronics? A. No, that is not the case at all.
Q. What is it? A. The knowledge of electronics for the
particular area that I am involved in is quite state of the
art.
Q. Would you look, please, at document page 492. Do you
recognise this document as being a copy of the evidence you
gave to the magistrate's court on 25th November 1987? A. I
have never seen the original of this.
Q. Do you recognise it as a copy? A. If I hadn't seen the
original I wouldn't recognise the copy.
Q. Would you care to see the original? A. If I may.
Q. Whilst the original is being obtained by the clerk of the
court, are you saying you have never had an opportunity to
look at the original? A. Well, I have never seen the
original, Mr. Temple. (Handed to the witness)
Q. Do you recognise your signature on that document?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you remember signing it? A. I don't actually.
Q. You do not remember signing it? A. No.
Q. Are you saying you do not remember giving evidence in the
magistrate's court? A. I do remember giving evidence, yes.
Q. Were you telling the truth? A. I was in a state of - I had
been diagnosed by the prison medical authorities at that time
as suffering from a psychosis.
Q. The question was, were you telling the truth? A. I was
doing the very best I could in the circumstances.
Q. At the time that you gave evidence you were represented by
counsel and solicitors? A. Correct.
Q. It was your decision as to whether or not you gave evidence;
correct? A. No.
Q. Are you saying you were forced to give evidence? A. No, I
was asked to give evidence on behalf of my wife. I had been
told by my solicitors not to give evidence.
Q. Was it your decision to give evidence? A. I don't think I
was capable of exercising a proper decision at the time
considering I was so ill.
Q. Your entire case is that you were so under the influence of
over-prescribed drugs that your mind did not go with your
actions; correct? That is the basis of your case. You
were arrested in mid May; correct? A. That is right.
Q. We are now dealing with the events in late November that same
year. Are you saying that you were still under the influence
of drugs? A. It is not my opinion, it is the experts who
saw me at the time. I refer you to the various medical
reports.
Q. Are you saying now that the evidence you gave to the
magistrate's court is incorrect? A. I wouldn't place too
much reliability on it myself because I know the state of
mind I was in.
Q. When you said that you were being asked to give evidence for
your wife, in your mind did you want to try and protect her?
A. One has a natural protective instinct towards one's wife.
Q. Had your wife done anything illegal with regard to any
blackmail plot against the Cyprus Government? A. Not at
all.
Q. Look at page 159; do you have page 159, Mr. Koupparis?
A. Yes, I am looking at it.
Q. Whose writing is it? A. At first glance it could be
either my writing or someone else's writing.
Q. You have had a lot of time to consider these matters: whose
writing is it? A. I can tell you this is not my writing.
Q. Whose writing is it? A. You had the opportunity of asking
any of the co-defendants whose writing it was. That
opportunity no longer exists. I cannot tell you whose
handwriting it is; I am not a forensic handwriting expert.
Q. How long have you been married to your wife? A. Fifteen
years.
Q. Are you saying you do not recognise her writing? A. I am
saying I don't recognise her writing on this piece of paper.
Q. Whose writing do you think it might be? A. I thought it
was mine, but it is patently obvious it is not now I am fully
recovered.
Q. Are you agreed then, you are now saying it is not yours?
A. It is not my handwriting and your forensics - your own
forensic report confirms that.
Q. Is it your brother Andre's [sic]? A. I wouldn't know my brother
Andre's'[sic] handwriting.
Q. Does it look anything like his handwriting? A. I have
hardly ever seen his writing to be able to compare.
Q. Is it your brother Jason's? A. The same goes for Jason.
Q. Does it come to this: it is definitely not your writing; it
could be your wife's? A. It is possible, yes.
Q. Would you look back at the deposition, the evidence you gave
in the magistrate's court at page 498. Do you see the final
line? A. Yes.
Q. "I look at TK28" - which was the original number of this
document page 159. "I look at TK28 in the bundle. The
writing is mine. It was written in the United Kingdom."
First of all, did you tell the magistrate that? A. I don't
remember if I actually used those words.
Q. You signed this deposition as being correct, Mr. Koupparis.
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. I ask you again: did you tell the Court that you had written
this document? A. On the face of it, yes. I beg your
pardon, I said, "The writing is mine", I didn't say I had
written it. I said, "The writing is mine".
Q. Oh, so your mind, as it were, was working particularly
clearly, was it, with regard to that question? A. Not at
all, it was very befuddled at that time.
Q. Then why are you careful to make such a fine distinction?
A. I was not careful at that time but I am explaining what I
said in relation to the fact it is not my handwriting,
although the words may have emanated as a result of what I
told someone to write down, but this is not my handwriting.
Although it could be mine it is not. It has been established
it is not. It looks sufficiently like my handwriting at that
time at a cursory glance for me to have said, "Yes, it is my
handwriting".
Q. Look at what you say in the next sentence: "It was written
in the United Kingdom." Was that true? A. I don't know.
Q. Then why say it? A. When you are in the state of mind I
was in you are asked a question, the first answer comes into
your head. You don't have the trial (sic) to stop and think
is that a reasonable, logical thing to say?
Q. Let us assume that you are telling us the truth in the sense
that it is not your writing. Who was it, please, who you
had told to write it? A. I don't remember.
Q. Let us look at the possibilities. The first obvious
possibility is your wife. A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask your wife to write it? A. I don't remember.
Q. Why should you be asking someone else to write this out for
you? A. There is no reason that I can think of.
Q. Let me give you a reason. It might be said by anybody who
knows this case now that if someone else other than you had
written this document, that someone else may have had
something to do with this alleged blackmail plot. A. It may
be said but that is not necessarily the case.
Q. You told us that in your mind you were asked to give evidence
on behalf of your wife and you told us that you wanted to
protect her. Let me suggest that you were telling a
deliberate lie to that magistrate's court when you said it
was your writing. You were protecting your wife, were you
not? A. My wife didn't need protecting; she has been found
not guilty.
Q. You were protecting your wife, Mr. Koupparis. A. Mr. Temple,
I am not aware my wife is on trial here today.
Q. What do you say to my suggestion this was a deliberate lie
by you to protect your wife? A. No.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Let us pause; at that time? A. No, I
was not deliberately lying at that time, but my state of mind
was not - in my opinion I should never have been allowed to
stand up in court and make any statement. The medical
evidence shows I wasn't fit at that time.
MR. TEMPLE: Was any suggestion made at the magistrate's court on
your behalf that you were unfit to give evidence? A. Counsel
had never seen me prior to five minutes before I arrived in
the courtroom.
MR. TEMPLE: Just answer the question: was any suggestion ever
made by anybody to that magistrate's court that you were
unfit to give evidence?
MR. BECKMAN: I think, with respect, the witness should be
allowed to answer that in his own way.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: He can answer it; he can add anything.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Temple, you know full well yourself I have had
to fight tooth and nail to prove I was fit to plead, and last
September I narrowly escaped being unfit under the Mental
Health Act, and if I hadn't been able to prove to the
satisfaction of the witnesses who will be called, I would be
in Broadmoor now.
MR. TEMPLE: Mr. Koupparis, what is the answer to the question?
A. Would you repeat the question?
Q. Just concentrate on the question: was any suggestion made on
your behalf that you were unfit to give evidence? A. I
didn't hear anyone raise the question.
Q. I want to look at your wife's involvement from a slightly
different view. Do you remember the logo which was used on
the telex? A. Yes, there was no telex by the way, it's
just a piece of paper with a logo stuck on it.
Q. The original of that logo can be traced all the way back to
your wife's employment. A. Yes.
Q. Not to put too fine a point on it, your wife removed a
document from the British High Commission where she worked.
A. Not strictly correct.
Q. Who took the document out in the first place? A. I took
the document from the premises.
Q. You went into the British High Commission, did you?
A. Yes.
Q. You remember it? A. Yes.
Q. Clearly? A. It happened before I had the psychosis. This
was round about February time. I wasn't fully out of my own
identity by that stage. Actually the reason I went there was
because I had a panic attack and I couldn't get out of the
car that morning and she had to take me to the High
Commission so I could calm down.
Q. You went into the British High Commission, did you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see your wife? A. I was with my wife. She took
me in.
Q. How did it come about that that particular set of corres-
pondence was taken? A. She had typed one of the letters.
I think it is the - I have seen the letter, and they were in
a file on the desk. I was there just to have a cup of tea
until I recovered and then make my own way. On the front of
the file it said "Johnson Matthey". I said to my wife, "Do
you know anyone who can supply platinum?" and that is how it
arose. She said, "Yes, I have just done some letters with
platinum". I looked at those letters but the reason photo-
copies were taken was something entirely different. The High
Commission at the time were looking to sell their photo-
copying machine which was an old Rank unit and they wanted
to buy a new one. I asked my wife to see if she could find
out if they were willing to sell it to me. I wanted to
install it in a shop. That is how it came about the
photocopies were done.
Q. Did your wife know the correspondence had been photocopied?
A. I believe that it was actually my wife that photoed [sic] it,
only to show me the quality of the photocopying machine.
Q. I want to ask you now about another general question relating
to your state of mind when you were in London. Do you
remember Mr. Beckman was asking you about parking clamps,
amongst other matters? A. Yes.
Q. Would you look at page 38 in the documents. Would you also
look at page 43. On page 38 do you see the writing about a
third of the way down: "Department of Transport, Andrew
Melville, Marsham Street. Clamp and implement"? A. Yes.
Q. Is that your writing? A. Again, this is all done in capital
writing and I have never done capital writing. The only time
that I have ever done it was during this brief period of
time. It isn't my normal handwriting at all.
Q. Are you saying you do not recognise your own writing?
A. As I said, it isn't my normal handwriting. My normal
writing is cursive script.
Q. Did you write it? A. Probably, yes.
Q. Half way down page 43 do you see "Code of practice of boot"?
A. Yes.
Q. "Legal parameters of booting"? A. Yes.
Q. "When do they boot"? A. Yes.
Q. That was all with reference to the Denver Boot car clamp, was
it not? A. Yes.
Q. You have told us in many circumstances and at considerable
length that by May of 1987 you were in this drug induced
psychosis, totally confused. Are you saying this is just, by
way of an example, meaningless jottings? A. These are
meaningless in relation to what was going on at the time.
Q. You actually wrote to Mr. Melville? A. Yes, I did.
Q. I will ask you to look at the content of these letters and I
am going to ask you whether or not you consider these to be
the product of complete confusion and meaningless jottings.
A. Mr. Temple, may we have the original transcripts of these
as well so we can see what took place and how laborious it
was to produce that letter?
MR. TEMPLE: I am just going to ask you to look at the letters
with me.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: We have not been adding things to the
bundle.
MR. TEMPLE: No, my Lord, this is just one illustration. (To the
witness): Mr. Koupparis, may I ask you to look at the letter
of 11th May 1987. (Handed to the witness) Do you have a
letter which begins, "11th May 1987"? A. Yes.
Q. Top right hand section: "P. Koupparis, Esq., c/o William
Stockler, London WC1". William Stockler were your solicitors
at the time? A. Yes.
Q. Then we can see it is addressed to Mr. Melville, Room C,
Department of Transport, London SW1. "Dear Mr. Melville,
Following our recent telephone conversation" - pausing there,
it is true, is it not, you did have a telephone conversation
with Mr. Melville? A. Indeed I did, on a number of
occasions.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: A little louder if you would. A. Yes,
your Lordship, I did.
MR. TEMPLE: "Please find enclosed a number of comments ..."
(reading). What was the product discussed over the
telephone? A. A version of the PIGs in the Nemo report.
Q. Are you saying that you never discussed with Mr. Melville
parking clamps and other ideas relating to the parking of
cars? A. This was my idea (it was a crazy idea) to attach
(inaudible) to a car.
Q. Let us see what you have written; we will go through it in
view of what you said: "Following our recent telephone
conversation ... (reading) ... cashless parking system". Is
that true? A. Yes, he did mention that.
Q. "Although not the reason for your conversation, you may be
interested to know ... (reading) ... receiving your comments.
Yours sincerely, P. Koupparis." Then you enclosed the paper
which we have seen, the note. A. There was somewhat more
than this enclosed, Mr. Temple.
Q. Did you enclose the note which you have? A. I am saying
there was quite a lot more enclosed than this, just this note
here.
Q. Did you compose this letter? A. No, my wife in her statment [sic]
has already admitted she actually typed this document.
Q. Your wife did nothing of the kind, Mr. Koupparis. A. My
wife has said, "My husband asked me to type out some
letters", without saying, "The letter to Andrew Melville".
Q. Did you compose this letter? A. My wife does most of my
short letters and correspondence. I merely tell her what I
want done and she puts on my letter.
Q. Did you write it out for her before she typed it? A. If
you would like to produce the original draft you can see what
I did.
Q. No, I am asking you the question, Mr. Koupparis. Did you
actually tell her the words to type? A. No.
Q. Did you give her any script to follow? A. There was some
rough notes which were made and they can be seen at the
countless revisions, corrections and so on, and finally
arrived at something.
Q. I want to get this absolutely clear. Let us just look at the
letter first. Are you saying this is your wife; your wife
typed it? A. My wife typed it, yes.
Q. Are you saying it was your wife's idea or your idea?
A. No, it was a paranoid delusion. It is nonsense; there
was no cashless parking system.
Q. Was it your wife's idea or your idea? A. It was my idea.
My wife doesn't manufacture parking clamps.
Q. Exactly. Did you tell her the gist of what to write?
A. Yes, I gave her an indication of what I wanted.
Q. Does the same apply to the note which we see, again dated
11th May 1989? A. Do you mean if I wrote it? I haven't
seen it since the last trial.
Q. Please do. (Handed to the witness) A. Yes, this was done
in the same way as the first letter.
Q. Mr. Koupparis, let me come straight to the point. You know
that the Crown's case is to this effect: that at the material
time during the middle months of 1987, you were hypomanic but
you knew what you were doing and I suggest this is an
instance of what you knew. A. No.
Q. You knew perfectly well what you were doing here. A. Not
at all; this letter proves that point.
Q. Just answer the question. A. I am trying to answer it,
Mr. Temple. This letter proves I didn't know what I was
doing.
Q. Are you saying that you had no idea that you were conversing
and writing to Mr. Melville about parking clamps? That is my
question: consider it carefully please and give us an
answer. A. I was writing and conversing with Mr. Melville
with a paranoid delusion that I had invented the ultimate
parking clamp to solve the world's problems, which was
complete nonsense because I have never been involved in
anything like this at all. It was merely a delusion.
Q. Is the answer in your mind you knew you were discussing the
question of parking clamps with Mr. Melville? What is the
answer? A. No, I wasn't discussing parking clamps because
what came up in my mind couldn't by any stretch of the mind
be considered a reasonable question of a parking clamp.
Q. What did you think you were discussing? A. Commercialisation
of the KAC [sic] 3 system, PIGs and (inaudible).
Q. What did you think you were discussing with Mr. Melville?
A. This letter, as I said, was written by my wife. She put
very basic ideas that I gave her into these words. I didn't
stand there and dictate this sort of thing. My wife was
unaware I was suffering from delusions at the time.
Q. Mr. Koupparis, do you remember your own counsel, Mr. Beckman,
criticising a witness for not answering a question? A. Yes,
indeed.
Q. Bear it in mind, would you? A. It goes both ways, doesn't
it?
Q. It certainly does. I ask you again: are you saying that
you had no idea that you were discussing parking clamps
and/or parking systems with Mr. Melville? A. I answered
the question by saying what I was actually discussing bore no
relation to (inaudible). My wife was unaware of that and
wrote a letter which appears to make sense.
Q. I want to come to the demand documents themselves. First of
all, do you accept that you composed them? A. I have
always maintained I composed a considerable amount of
literature on this subject on my floppy disks. Unfortunately
it appears that it is (inaudible).
Q. Do you accept that it was your idea; you composed the words?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you accept it was you who typed the words? A. Yes.
Q. Do you accept it was you who sent them to the Presidential
Palace? A. Yes.
Q. Was it you who arranged for a copy to be sent to the Cypriot
High Commission in London? A. Yes, with the caveat that I
don't agree with what has been purported to have been in the
envelope, the entire contents.
Q. You told this Court not half an hour ago that you had always
maintained that in your mind you had never made any demand
within a document. A. Indeed.
Q. You added that you were doing it for other reasons. A. Yes.
Q. Let us look first of all at page 5 and then page 11. Do you
see a paragraph just below the half way mark, "The only way",
do you see that? A. Yes.
Q. "The only way to stop this attack is by the payment of US $15
million." Would you go to page 11 now, the half way mark.
"Cyprus is now facing a danger at the very
least equal in magnitude to the Turkish invasion.
The difference now is that you have the power
to stop it. The Government of Cyprus is invited
to pay the sum of US $15 million on behalf of
their citizens to ensure that this terrible
holocaust is prevented from happening."
Then ignore the next few lines. New paragraph:
"There will be no negotiations, reductions,
extensions, warnings or deadlines."
We have established that it was you who typed and composed
the demand documents. Are you telling us that this is not a
demand? A. Indeed, I went to considerable lengths to make
sure no payment could ever be met and that no threat ever
existed (inaudible). It is a physical impossibility.
Q. If it was not a demand, what was it? A. It was an
intelligence test and that paragraph that you have just read
out is the crux of the matter I was postulating would happen
to a government. What negotiation policy does a government
adopt when the terrorists decide not to negotiate? It is
all very well for the British Government or the Cypriot
Government to say, "We don't negotiate with terrorists", but
if and when, through the misuse and laxity in our rules and
laws, we allow people going outside the socially acceptable
democratic system to get hold of weapons of mass destruction,
what do we do? What do the public do when a government
decides, "We are not going to negotiate?"
This was part of my paranoid delusion and I wanted to
test the government to see if they were capable of handling
the sort of scenario I was postulating, and this is the sort
of work I have been doing for years.
Q. So in your mind first of all you wanted to test the
government? A. Yes.
Q. It follows, of course, that this is a test to which they can
react? A. Yes, a test which showed whether they were able
to see the clues.
Q. No, the test received was (inaudible) that you pretend to
write and make a blackmail demand; is that what you are
saying? A. What I did, I played this as a test to the
government.
Q. Just pause there; so the test was embodied in this blackmail
demand to which you wanted their reaction? A. No.
Q. How do you explain the words, "You are invited to pay"?
A. They cannot pay, that is the whole point of the
intelligence test. If they were able to read it and perceive
what I wrote that it was nonsense. Unfortunately a third
party interceded and, for reasons I mentioned yesterday, the
British Government decided to get the Cypriots over and
persuade them this was real, even though we all agree now
it's nonsense.
Q. When you sent that document off to the Presidential Palace,
did you think that it contained on the face of it a demand
for money? Just "Yes" or "No". A. No.
Q. You did not? A. No.
Q. You had no idea - you do not think for one moment that
contained a demand for money? A. I made sure it didn't by
making the dimensions of the currency impossible to pay.
Q. So you were thinking about that as well, were you? You
deliberately put that in, did you, a deliberate mistake?
A. It is not a deliberate mistake, it is an element, a
mathematical puzzle and you can work it out for yourself.
Q. Are you saying you deliberately thought about the matter
and put in an error to the extent that there are no such
things as $200 bills? A. Five hundred dollar bills are
virtually non-existent.
Q. Did you put a $200 bill as a deliberate error? A. I didn't
make the mistake; it was obvious I could not benefit. They
were to realise $200 bills didn't exist. That is why
Mr. Mavrellis was called, because he is the person with the
keys to the Central Bank, must know $200 don't exist.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: The question was: did you make a
deliberate mistake in putting in the reference to $200 bills?
A. Your Lordship, I cannot see it as a deliberate mistake.
It is part of the puzzle, as it were. I imagine it would be
obvious to anybody, just by looking at it, here we are
talking about something that doesn't exist.
MR. TEMPLE: When you typed out this demand document, did you
make an error and put two page sixes? A. Again, that was
part of the sort of clue trail; that has a very significant
meaning.
Q. That was deliberate also, was it? A. The fact that it
has page 5 and 6, they were interposed. In the state of mind
I was in that meant something to me. Unfortunately, I was
unable to see those who received it couldn't see the same
things I was writing, these allusions to other things. It
meant something to me; obviously didn't mean the same thing
to the people who received it.
Q. I want a clear answer, please. Let me put the question so
there is no mistake by anybody in this court as to what it
was: did you deliberately put in two page sixes? A. No.
What I did was I made page 5 into 6 and then ---
Q. Was it deliberate? A. Well, there is something like that
reverses that situation.
Q. Exactly. My question to you is, was it deliberate?
A. Yes, it represented MI5 and MI6.
Q. Does it follow that the reason you have just given us for
sending this document, namely to test as it were the
Government of Cyprus' reaction; it was not part and parcel of
you writing a book for your daughter? A. The reason for
the test was so that I could get a job.
Q. Will you answer the question? A. I don't see what it has
to do with my daughter.
Q. Will you answer the question? A. I didn't understand the
question.
Q. If you are right, you are telling the truth that you were
testing the Government of Cyprus' intelligence, testing to
see how they would react in this matter, it follows, does it
not, it could not have anything to do with you writing a
potential book for your daughter? A. Oh, but it could; it
certainly could. In the state of mind I was in one thing
developed from another and it was flowing uncontrollably.
I was not in a position to stem the ideas. An idea would
appear out of nowhere, would swell, fill my head, swirl
around, become mixed with other ideas and I was impelled
(inaudible). It is very difficult for you to understand. I
know you have not suffered a psychosis, I hope, and I rely
strongly on the respective medical evidence to support what I
am saying, that this is what happened. I mean, the mind is
a very wonderful organ. Its infinitely flexible imagination
can range through the entire sphere of human knowledge and
when things go wrong it can run riot and these are the sort
of results you can get.
Q. Looking back on it, were you saying you were totally confused
during March and April? A. Again, it is a difficult
question. To me there didn't appear to be any confusion.
Q. Let me put it to you another way. Let us look at the
telphone [sic] calls you made. You appreciate that the jury have
heard the tone of voice and the way in which these 'phone
calls were made, do you not? A. Yes.
Q. You will also appreciate that you had to juggle around in
your mind with a number of characters? A. I was not
juggling around with characters, characters were juggling
around with me.
Q. You had to pretend to be on some occasions Symeon [sic]
Cambanellos [sic], another occasion Digsby, another occasion
Wilkins. A. I can assure you this very fact, that a man is
'phoning up some people with four or five different
identities is patently ludicrous for you to suggest anyone
was actually trying to do something sensible, was adding
thought and reason (inaudible). It destroys the foundation
of your calling in saying it was a well thought out organised
plan.
Q. The fact is that you never got them mixed up. A. How do
we know that? All the tapes haven't been disclosed, bits
have been edited out of them, conversations - we know someone
even changed - all sorts of things have gone on with the
tapes. In fact I have a forensic report that suggests some
have been edited and fabricated, but I will not argue the
point. That is the best we can do.
Q. The evidence we have before us is you were not mixing one ID
with another in the sense of you getting confused yourself.
This is the thread of it. Let me explain what I mean. It
had the thread where if you were playing Digsby it was to the
effect you were going to be Digsby, then introduce
Cambanellos [sic]. Cambanellos [sic] was the man who could locate the
PIGs and Cambanellos [sic] wanted some money, did he not?
A. Cambanellos [sic] offered to send them money, told them not to
pay the ransom and asked, as a result of their prompting, on
an earlier tape which has not been disclosed, for the money
which had been suggested by one of the other negotiators be
made available for this. This was suggested to Digsby.
MR. TEMPLE: Let us concentrate on this question: when you left
the Cypriot High Commission in your mind you thought you had
received £250,000, did you not?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Did you say "£250,000"?
MR. TEMPLE: I apologise, £25,000. (To the witness): When you
left the Cypriot High Commission you thought you had £25,000?
A. When I actually walked out of the door I had two bundles
of money in two pockets which I thought amounted to £5,000.
Q. Would you look at page 498, the second to last paragraph:
"I anticipated I had obtained £25,000 from the Cypriot High
Commission just before I was arrested." Was that true?
A. Well, I had been handed an envelope with £25,000 in it.
As far as I was concerned, I had to think it if was money
that was available to me to spend as I had said I would.
The fact that I left 20,000 of it on the table I have been
told is not a legal point we can make anything out of.
Q. I just want a simple answer to the question. Was it true
that you told the magistrate that you anticipated you had
obtained £25,000 --- A. Yes.
Q. --- and had you also made it clear that as Symeon [sic] Cambanellos [sic]
you were in a position to locate the PIGs? A. Not in my
own words I haven't seen.
Q. That is the effect of what you said. A. I have not seen
that in writing. I am accepting it without having seen it.
I have often asked to be shown where I have said to the High
Commissioner I can locate the PIGs for him.
Q. No-one has suggested you made that deception to the High
Commissioner; you made it principally to Mr. Demetriades.
A. I beg your pardon, Mr. Temple, I am charged with
deceiving the High Commissioner for Cyprus.
Q. No, you are not. A. Well, that is what it says in my
indictment.
Q. It does not say anything of the kind. I am not going to
argue the indictment with you. Would you look, as you have
raised the question, at page 13 of the transcript of the
telephone conversations. A. Is that part of this exhibit
bundle?
MR. TEMPLE: No, you will be given a copy. (Handed to the
witness)
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Just before you go on, Mr. Koupparis,
are you under the illusion that because you did not make the
representation to the High Commissioner himself, therefore
you cannot be guilty of Count 2? A. No, your Lordship, I
am not saying that. What I am saying is I haven't seen where
I have specifically said £25,000 is to find.
Q. I thought you were saying that because you had not made it to
the High Commissioner, you might not be guilty. A. No, I
did say I didn't make it to him. Obviously I said very
little to the High Commissioner, but I accept he is acting on
behalf of the Government of Cyprus. What was the page,
Mr. Temple?
MR. TEMPLE: Page 13, Mr. Koupparis. So that we can put it in
context, just above the half way mark do you see the sentence
which begins "This gas"? A. Yes.
Q. This is a conversation between you and Superintendent
Demetriades. A. This is a summary that has been made by a
Cypriot - Anglo-Cypriot - who is a policeman working for
Scotland Yard, yes?
Q. What does that have to do with it? A. I have always
disputed these statements are accurate. Other transcripts
have been produced and one can see clearly that the different
translators have interpreted the thing in an entirely
different way. It is almost impossible to realise that you
are looking at the same conversation in some cases.
Q. Let us look at the summary, and if it is in any way unfair to
you I am sure Mr. Beckman will deal with it.
"This gas will be buried underground in
reaction chambers and when released can be
lethal within two minutes of it coming into
contact with human beings or animals. He" -
that is you posing as Cambanellos [sic] -
"explains that PIGs (poison injection
generators) can be detected by use of a
helicopter equipped with infra-red cameras.
He offers his expertise provided (a) his
expenses are met by the Cyprus Government,
and (b) everything is secure for him. He
asks for arrangements to be made with the
Cyprus High Commission in London to pay him
some cash in advance."
A. That is exactly what I have been saying, Mr. Temple. It
doesn't say Symeon [sic] Cambanellos [sic] said, "I am going to find the
PIGs, pay me £25,000". It says he offers his expertise,
expertise in everything, in many, many things, not just this.
There were many things Cambanellos [sic] offered to help with. It
is with the distribution of free condoms, with the
erradication [sic] of rats and mice with his fleas and snakes.
Why haven't I been charged with the 100 million profit I
promised them? I was suffering from paranoid delusions of
grandeur which were induced in me by the drugs I was taking.
I was talking nonsense and at that time they knew as well.
Q. Mr. Koupparis, no-one has suggested for a moment that you
were not suffering from hypomania. A. We dispute I was
suffering from hypomania.
Q. All I want to investigate with you and with the jury is
whether or not you knew you were getting money, whether or
not you knew you were making a blackmail demand.
Now I will move to another subject. Do you remember
the evidence which was given to the effect that you were told
by the Cypriot Government officials that they had not
received any blackmail demand? That is the evidence we have
heard and we also know - and I am shortening it so that we
can summarise it - that the effect was that you were going to
send a copy of the blackmail demand document via the Cypriot
High Commission in London. Correct so far? A. Yes.
Q. We also know it was you who sent off the documents. A. Yes,
with the caveat ---
Q. When you sent - I interrupted you. A. With the caveat for
the second bundle.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: There was something else in it? A. I
believe there was, your Lordship.
MR. TEMPLE: When you sent that second bundle in your mind did
you think you were doing anything wrong? A. I truly - I
thought I was doing the only thing I could, which was to
defuse the situation and let them know that all this Digsby
nonsense was complete balderdash. That is the whole reason
for that nonsensical piece of paper and everything, the
Digsby telex. It is a complete piece of nonsense. No
government in the world that calls itself a professional
government would ever fall for such a piece of nonsense. I
cannot imagine how ---
Q. The question was: did you think you were doing anything
wrong? A. Not at all.
Q. Do you remember Miss Holmes, the young woman from Moore
Printcraft? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Telling us in evidence, "He did not want me to see what was
on the sheets"? A. I didn't realise she had the ability to
read minds.
Q. You are saying she is wrong about that? A. Photocopiers
accept photocopying material face downwards. If I gave her
a document face downwards it was because I was putting them
on the plate to be copied. You know as well as I do copies
go face downwards [sic] and they are handled by the staff before
they are given to the customers. She was able to see them
at her leisure.
Q. Let us look at it from a slightly different view. Do you
remember the evidence about fingerprints, or lack of them?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you accept that your fingerprints were found on numerous
documents, both at Strickland Court and in Cyprus? A. Yes,
I do accept that.
Q. Do you accept the evidence of the fingerprint officer that
there was a lack of your fingerprints on the demand document?
A. Unfortunately this jury doesn't have the benefit of what
took place at the previous trial but ---
Q. Do you accept the evidence is that your fingerprints were not
found on the demand document? A. That is not the evidence,
with respect, Mr. Temple. The documents were tested once
and they were tested a second time and 14 new sets of finger-
prints appeared.
Q. Let us go straight to the point I want to make. When you
were arrested you had a pair of rubber gloves in your
suitcase. A. There was a pair of used rubber gloves in the
briefcase.
Q. Had you been wearing those gloves when you were preparing the
document? A. No, I was not wearing rubber gloves when I
went into the shop and that is when I was preparing the
document.
Q. I suggest that you had gone in your mind to some trouble to
make sure fingerprints were not on the document. A. Not at
all. I have explained the rubber gloves and the name of the
bookbinders is recorded as one of the exhibits. I think it
is in Banner Street. They were in my possession when
arrested; they bind books and I was on my way from
Beaconsfield (inaudible) I was carrying around, and as you
know yourself from the evidence at St. Ives, I had severe
dematitis [sic] of one hand. Whether that was real or not is
something else, but they were unable to fingerprint both
hands, weren't they? Now, I said right at the beginning,
even when I was in the psychotic state, these rubber gloves
were to prevent my hands coming into contact with glue and
solvent because I was going to take documents away when they
were still wet with glue and that is the explanation, the
reason I had rubber gloves. In the unused equipment (sic)
there was a whole lot of dentists' tools and medical
equipment. I was collecting medical equipment because I was
trying to buy Dr. Sophocleous' practice.
Q. Do you remember giving that explanation to the magistrate?
A. I remember it from reading this thing.
Q. Was your mind clear then? A. No, my mind was not clear.
Q. Is it a true explanation? A. This is something you can
check for yourselves. The two witnesses are named, they own
the bookbinding company and I had their address on me.
Q. Mr. Koupparis, the question is a simple one: did you tell
the truth to the magistrate? A. Yes, I did.
Q. I want to concentrate on the document you sent up to the High
Commission in London. On any view, in your mind you did not
think that the Cypriot Government had received the first set
of documents. A. I knew that they had received the first
set.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Had or had not? A. Had, had. Cyprus
is a small country and I had very good connections in the
Cypriot Government at all levels, including the police.
MR. TEMPLE: If that was your state of mind, why is it that you
were asking whether or not they had received the blackmail
document? A. This was as a result of my tape recording of
the telephone conversations going on and to be used as the
evidence to the press conference when I finally got there to
establish they had managed to use the Island - they had
failed to respond to (inaudible) April Fool's Day and that
was it. As far as I was concerned they failed the test.
Q. I will come back to April Fool's Day in a moment. Let us
consider the answer you have given. So if one looks at the
telephone transcripts it is perfectly clear that you in your
mind - just looking at the telephone transcripts - do not
think that the demand documents have been delivered; correct?
A. No, it is perfectly clear that the Cypriots have not
received them and we know that was incorrect, so how can you
draw that conclusion? I was the one suffering from the
psychosis; what is their excuse?
Q. Just concentrate on one question in order to make a point.
Let me invite you once again to the transcripts at page 2,
Exhibit 17, the conversation of 2nd April. You are posing as
Colonel Digsby and Mavrellis tells you he has met the
President but the President knows nothing about Force
Majeure. Do you remember being told that? A. As I say, I
have to rely on these summaries to remember the actual words
that were given. I don't think anyone would expect anybody
to remember word for word telephone conversations after two
years - over two years.
Q. Turn over the page. Again just below the half way mark:
"Mr. Constantinou tells Digsby that having
been unable to speak to the President he spoke
to Mr. Mavrellis who confirmed that he had been
in communication with Digsby. Mr. Mavrellis
saw the President, who assured him that Force
Majeure and Commander Nemo meant nothing to him.
Mr. Constantinou interrupted a meeting in order
to confirm that the President knew nothing about
Commander Nemo or Force Majeure. Digsby wants
to know if there is a secure telex number he
can use to communicate with Mr. Constantinou.
Mr. Constantinou tells him that there is no
telex facility at the Presidential Palace, but
there is a secure telex at the Foreign Ministry
in Nicosia. Mr. Constantinou explains to
Digsby that all the embassies have direct lines
with the Foreign Ministry and if he wished
something sent he could do it through any of
the embassies."
Then the address is given of the London High Commissioner and
the telephone number. I suggest, Mr. Koupparis, that at
this stage in your mind you thought that your original demand
had gone astray. A. I was fully aware that it had arrived.
Q. Who had told you? A. I spoke to two.
Q. Take this slowly; who told you? A. I spoke to two Cypriot
ministers.
Q. Names? A. Iacovou - I don't know how he spells his name,
I.A.C.O.V.O.U.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Someone gave it yesterday. A. I think
the English version is Jacob.
MR. TEMPLE: You mentioned a second minister. A. Michaelides.
Q. When did you speak to those two? A. It was the same day
that I first spoke to Mavrellis.
Q. On 2nd April? A. Yes. I had to establish whether they
had realised it was a hoax and done nothing or whether they
thought it was real. In that case I had to excuse (sic) the
situation. I couldn't leave it hanging like that. It was
never my intention to cause any stress or anything, it was
merely what I felt was my duty to the people of Cyprus.
Q. You wanted to be helpful to them? A. Indeed I did. I
wanted to reunify the island paradise I remember.
Q. In your mind are you telling us that you wanted to assist
the Government of Cyprus as from 2nd April? A. Right from
the beginning. First of all I wanted to get a job with them
but as the delusion progressed and became grander and grander
it was eventually my belief I would be given the Presidency
of Cyprus. It was a totally invented belief but I believed.
Q. Would you answer my question? Did you want to assist the
Government of Cyprus as from 2nd April? A. I cannot say
what the date is; I have said to Mr. Beckman I do not have a
calendar of these events. That unfortunately was blotted
out by the drugs and right at the early stages I remembered
events, I didn't know which order they had taken place in,
odd recollections, so I cannot say to you what I thought,
other than what my motives were for doing what the evidence
suggests I did.
Q. You kept your plan going right up to the date of your arrest.
Did you ever say to the Cyprus Government, "April Fool"?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you? A. Yes.
Q. You indicated it to them, did you? A. The "Mission
Accomplished" letter.
Q. You never sent it, did you? A. Yes, I did.
Q. To whom? A. To the President.
Q. When? A. It was sent the day before April Fool's Day,
which one can determine that as being what, the 30th, 31st of
the previous month.
Q. Are you now saying this was indeed all a joke? A. No, I
would love to be able to say it was a joke.
Q. You cannot have it both ways. A. Yes, I can. I can have
it both ways because I was in a state of mind when many
things can take place at different levels and one doesn't
know what one is doing sometimes, although (inaudible) this
April Fool's punchline as it were. My intention originally
was to do something historical for Cyprus, to establish my
ideas which I thought were worth listening to, and I felt I
had something very valuable to offer but, you know,
everything got scrambled up and the way it has come out,
quite frankly I think you will have to agree, the scenario,
from prison, doesn't quite make sense.
Q. I want to cover one other matter with you on this idea of
April Fool. In your mind did you think it was a joke? Did
you want to play a joke? A. I included a lot of humour in
the demand document, what is called technical intelligence.
It is if you like - unfortunately I was unable to see the
people receiving that would not find it - would not be able
to see the points that I was making. You see, I could say
things in words and sentences, allusions that were so remote
I do not expect anyone would even see them now. I can
explain them but there was a whole bunch of allusions to MI5,
history, to do with space and things which are in there, and
I can explain them all and you can see they make sense but
nobody pointed them out. I could see them at the time.
Q. If you wanted to help the Cyprus Government, can you explain
why the purported telex on page 3 was sent with the copy
documents? Look at it, you have gone to a lot of trouble to
produce this document. First of all, let me ask you about
this document. Were you thinking about this as you wrote it?
A. Mr. Temple, may I see the original typed exhibit? This
is something I asked for yesterday and it was not made
available.
Q. Yes, of course. You might need the original to answer this
question. A. It does make a lot of difference to my
recollection of this document.
MR. TEMPLE: Very well, let him have the original.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: While it is coming we will work off the
copy.
MR. TEMPLE: The question is: when you typed that document were
you thinking about what you were typing? A. The typewriter
wasn't operating on its own.
Q. What is the answer to the question, Mr. Koupparis? A. Well,
obviously some action on my part was necessary if I did
indeed type this to get a little letters to hit the paper.
Q. Were you thinking about what you were typing?
A. Mr. Temple, I wasn't in control of my mind. If I were
to say "Yes" to that question, I would have to qualify it by
saying that thoughts in my mind were precipitated by the drug
induced delusions I was having. Had I been my normal self I
wouldn't have got myself into this ridiculous situation.
Q. You know very well it was a dangerous question. A. Yes,
because we are playing with words. You are making a word
play out of what to me was an horrific nightmare.
Q. I have asked you that question because of the evidence that
was given at an early stage in this trial, first of all by
Mr. Roy Moore. Do you remember you asked him how to spell
"Cairo"? A. Yes, I remember reading a statement to that
effect.
Q. Do you remember him telling us that you made the remark, "I
am composing as I go along"? A. May I ask, was this ---
Q. Do you remember that evidence? A. Did that come out at
this trial or the previous trial?
Q. This trial. Do you remember the evidence? A. Yes.
Q. It was true that you knew what you were doing when you were
typing this telex. A. When you say "knew", no, I was
acting with false information, delusions. I didn't have
control of my own mind.
Q. You were making a second demand in your mind, Mr. Koupparis.
You were making a fresh demand when these documents were sent
off to London. A. There was never a stale demand,
Mr. Temple.
Q. Look at the final paragraph.
"We have man inside FM now in deep cover so
please keep matter dark. Expect to move on
next operation and detain group including
Comm. Nemo. Suggest you pay demand which
shall be recovered once danger has been
eliminated."
There was not any need for you to include that document with
the copy, was there? A. Yes, there was.
Q. Why? A. Because this shows what a load of nonsense the
whole thing is. The demand cannot be paid. Look at the
money it is saying to have; $200 bills and how are you going
to pay $200 bills?
Q. You missed the point. Everybody accepts - certainly the
Crown accepts - that your mind was, in layman's language,
working in overdrive, suffering from hypomania. A. No.
Q. The point I am investigating is whether or not you thought
you were making a blackmail demand. A. I never considered
it was a blackmail demand, so the fact I am sending a report
at their request with a little bit of nonsense, and equally
they know it is nonsense (inaudible).
Q. Why include your little bit of nonsense? Why include the
final paragraph? A. Never mind the final paragraph, look
at the letter.
Q. Just concentrate on the question: why include it? A. There
was a man sitting in a shop spontaneously typing up a piece
of nonsense, not mad but quite calm (inaudible) by the
security services not realising they were dealing with a man
who was very, very ill.
Q. Are you telling us, then, that this was just a spontaneous
letter which was off the top of your head? A. It was
absolutely spontaneous.
Q. Look at page 4 of the transcripts of the telephone
conversations; do you have it? A. I am looking at page 4
of the summaries, yes.
Q. The summary of 9th April. I will start four or six lines
from the top of the page.
"Mr. Constantinou tells him that the High
Commissioner informed them by telephone that
the parcel was received by him and despatched
to Cyprus, but it has not yet arrived at the
President's office. Digsby claims that
Commander Nemo tried to make contact with the
President's office but was unsuccessful."
This is what I want you to concentrate on:
"Digsby wants to know whether Troodos mountain
is covered in snow. This is confirmed by
Mr. Constantinou."
Would you turn back to page 3, the telex. You see that it
starts,
"Our intelligence indicates that system REC-3
now in Cyprus operation delay due to heavy
snow covering some PIG units."
Are you saying now that all this was simply totally random
confused comings and goings by you with no thread? A. Are
you aware that "Snow" was the first code name for the pig
farm that MI5 was running in Richmond, Surrey, on Ham Common,
and their code was 020?
Q. What is the answer to my question? A. This is part of an
allusion to MI5 involved in this, and Snow, the name of the
(inaudible) was Owen and you can extract "Owen" out of a name
which backwards means "omen", which is the portent of things
to come, good or evil, and that is what it is all about,
Mr. Temple.
It is a man whose mind has run riot and the words he is
using do not even make sense in any instant now, two years
after the event really, but "snow" doesn't mean snow on the
mountains, it means "Operation Double-cross". The $20 and
$200 bills is what it is all about. You ask me if it was
deliberate. If you make $200 (inaudible) you end up with
020, which is the pig farm on Ham Common. That is the
complexity of ideas that were running through my mind.
Q. Do you understand the purpose of that question? A. Yes, I
do understand the purpose of the question, but I am trying to
illustrate to you the depth and complexity of the way that
the ideas were forming in my mind.
Q. You understood that question very well, did you not,
Mr. Koupparis? Let me make the suggestion so that you can
deal with it. Despite your mind being in overdrive, when
one looks at the threads of your activities they weave
together, do they not? This letter, this purported telex we
have been looking at, has its place in your scheme.
A. There was no scheme as such. When I let them off the
hook - even the logo is absurd. There is a logo from the
British High Commission in Cyprus delivered to the Cyprus
High Commission in Britain (inaudible). Everyone can see it
has a big hole punched through it, which is the way the
Commission cancells [sic] passports. This is my way of saying,
"It's not right".
Q. Is that another way of thinking about matters, saying, "I
will put them to the test"? A. Not at all. The point
with this logo was to make a logo (inaudible) the
correspondence in the circle at the top.
Q. Just address your mind to the question I asked you: was it
in your mind to use the logo as a little test, as it were, to
deliberately use the logo with a little hole punched to test
them? A. Only spontaneously. It wasn't something I
planned, it just precipitated itself when I found myself
confronted with the typewriter by pure chance. I could never
have known this in a million years of planning. When the
typewriter that Tina Holmes or her stepfther [sic] showed me to
that day had a type face that might look like a - what would
I (inaudible) the type face on that machine produced anything
that looked like a telex. It was not in my control, whatever
I had to do, had to do in a few seconds when I saw that telex
machine and sat down to type. That is what I call
spontaneous.
Q. I have one other question to put to you regarding the telex.
Do you accept that you were on frequent occasions suggesting
during the course of the telephone conversations that the
demand be paid? Just "Yes" or "No". A. Digsby asked them
to consider the alternatives. He never, as far as I am
aware, never, ever said to them "Pay the demand". All he has
done is said, "What are your alternatives? What do you
think? Prepare yourselves. You may have to pay the
demand." But Cambanella always said, "Don't pay it, never
pay it. We will get them. Don't pay it", and even
Cambanella said, "I don't want to deal with you. I don't
want to help you", and they said "No", they insisted. Over
the course of six weeks the Cypriot Government managed to
drag out April Fool's for six weeks in this matter and at the
end of the day the people of Cyprus showed exactly what they
thought about the matter because President Kyprianou is no
longer President. I don't mean that in a vicious way, but as
you know, a huge political scandal developed out of this
matter when it became apparent that to spend so much money
and so much effort in tracking down one man who obviously had
been a psychiatric patient for several - for two years was
suffering from whatever it was - no-one knew whether it was
adverse effect of drugs or complete raving insanity, but it
has taken me two years to prove all that happened to me was
an adverse reaction to drugs, and on the top of that I have
to prove to you what a little piece of paper with a hole in
it means two years after the event.
Q. I want to ask you quite shortly about your movements in
Cyprus before you came to this country. Do you accept that
you went to Nicosia on 22nd March? A. I lived in Nicosia.
Q. Do you accept that you went to the Hilton on 22nd March?
A. I often go to the Hilton. I am a paid-up member of their
health club, my entire family is, and I do often go to the
Hilton.
Q. Where did you post the demand documents? A. I don't have
primary knowledge of where it was posted, but looking at the
various bits of evidence and things, I can say it was posted
at the Central Post Office in Nicosia.
Q. Did you post them? A. I don't remember having posted them
but obviously I did at that time because it was mentioned. I
think Digsby told them where it had been posted from.
Q. When you bought the ticket, did you appreciate that you were
paying for excess luggage? A. You know, we have already
bought the matter up, that matter totally disregards ---
Q. Mr. Koupparis, the question is, did you appreciate that you
were paying for excess luggage? A. What I appreciated I
was doing was setting up the punch-line to the intelligence
test. It wasn't a question of money to me if I could save
Cyprus.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Setting up what? A. The punch-line
for the intelligence test on one level and on another level
actually buying myself a ticket to go to London with.
MR. TEMPLE: I just want you to look at page 18 of the demand
documents. A. You mean page 18 of the exhibit bundle?
Q. Yes, please. Again, just below the half way mark, "We have
the equivalent destructive power"; do you have it? A. Yes.
Q. Starting with the next sentence. "We cannot believe that any
nation would commit genetic suicide for the sake of 100
kilogrammes of paper." You wrote those words, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you now please look at your calculations which you made
and we can see at page 292. Whatever the mathematics may
ultimately be, Mr. Koupparis, do you accept that these were
working out the weight of Cyprus pounds? A. Yes.
Q. You also accept your calculations were also looking at 100
kilogrammes? A. Yes.
Q. Finally, I want to ask you about Symeon [sic] Cambanellos [sic]. Was the
position that back in the family there was a connection with
Cambanellos [sic]? A. Yes.
Q. You of course will have looked carefully at the way in which
the indictment was framed, and the allegation is that you
were using the name Symeon [sic] Cambanellos [sic] for everyday practical
purposes in London. Did you book in any of the hotels as
Symeon [sic] Cambanellos [sic]? A. I may have done.
Q. Which ones? A. I know I stayed at a number of hotels which
do not appear in the depositions and statements. I was under
the impression I stayed at the Royal Lancaster Hotel and also
the Royal Garden Hotel. Certainly there are bits of paper
with writings on them in the unused material, but I don't
know what names I used.
Q. Have you any documentation to say you booked in as Symeon [sic]
Cambanellos [sic]? A. None has been released by the prosecution
but there are many things that haven't been released.
Q. Did you conduct any of your correspondence regarding business
activities in the name of Symeon [sic] Cambanellos [sic]? A. Yes, I
have used the name Cambanella [sic] as a business name.
Q. In London? A. Yes, it is registered in the United Kingdom
as a business name.
Q. Have you any correspondence to show you were using the name
Symeon [sic] Cambanellos [sic] in London for business purposes during May
1987? A. I have correspondence to show I used the name
Cambanellos [sic] in the dock up there if I may be allowed to ---
Q. Certainly, for business purposes? A. Yes, for business
purposes.
Q. Show me. A. By your leave, sir?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Yes. (The witness returned to the
dock) Perhaps it would be easier if I asked the defence.
(To the witness): The right thing to do is to come back
again. Leave your papers there and somebody will try and
find it. We can continue with the questions until that is
found.
MR. BECKMAN: It might save time to mention it to Mrs. King [sic] so
she can try to find it while he is in the witness box. (The
witness returned to the witness box)
MR. TEMPLE: On the subject of Cambanellos [sic], do you remember that
during the course of the conversations you had you used the
phrase that you wanted to use an assumed name? A. Yes.
Q. Why did you do that? A. I cannot explain why, but at some
point I began - the loss of identity was so complete that I
began to doubt my own identity. I mean, I really - one of
the things about this case is coincidence if you like, so the
fact I used an assumed name, which means anybody - I did feel
like anybody at times and I doubted the fact I was Cambanella
to the point where I actually persuaded myself this was also
the same as all the other identities in a sense.
Q. There was no secret in your mind about the name; you were
explaining during the course of these telephone conversations
what the name meant, were you not? A. Yes, exactly, but I
actually ---
Q. You were thinking about the matter. A. But there were
times I actually called myself Nemo.
Q. Of course there were. A. Quite openly without heeding it
to people who knew me and, you know, you have to appreciate
if this was a real blackmail and if I had gotten away with
$15 million everyone would have known who I was because I had
gone all over the West End of London calling myself Nemo.
Q. You were explaining to Demetriades about Nemo. A. The
deriviation [sic] of the word.
Q. Look at page 15 of the telephone transcript. Before we look
at this, were you accustomed to using plays on words, puns?
A. Not before this.
Q. You are aware, are you not, it is a classic symptom of
hypomania for a sufferer to enjoy the use of punning or plays
on words? A. Yes.
Q. Not drug induced hypomania, endogenous hypomania. A. It
also happens in drug induced.
Q. It happens in endogenous hypomania. A. I was not suffering
from endogenous hypomania.
Q. So you say. It may be it was a bit of both. A. I don't
think so. I don't think I have ever suffered from any mental
illness.
Q. I just want to deal with it because it may be important to
lay the foundation. At the top of page 15, "According to him
'Di-Tox' can be interpreted as 'double toxic' or 'die tox'
i.e. toxic death. That is a nice play on words. A. Yes,
and it is typical of the sort of things that were going
through my mind.
Q. Look at page 305 in the document just by way of another
example. A. Is this Exhibit 43?
Q. Yes, page 305. You see a list of words: "An over the border
safe", i.e. a receptacle. A. "Over the border switch"?
Q. No, below that. "An over the border safe", i.e. receptacle
for putting money in. Then the last line, "How safe can you
get"? A. Yes.
Q. Classic, is it not? A. Classic of what? I would say it is
classic of a drug induced condition.
Q. I want you to deal with two final matters. You are aware,
are you not, that the Crown's case is that you did not
include any other enclosures when you sent up the copy demand
document to London, other than the telex? A. Again, I
haven't been shown the original document.
Q. Your case --- A. Why are you avoiding showing me the
original document, Mr. Temple? We know why but I would
like the jury to know why.
Q. Mr. Koupparis, just concentrate on my question. You are
saying that included in the documentation sent up to London
was a photostat from a magazine? A. Yes.
Q. I suggest that you have carefully woven that in your evidence
to give some credence to the fact in your mind of a joke.
Let me make it clear: I suggest to you that at no time did
you include in the documents sent up to the High Commissioner
any photostat from a magazine. A. The witnesses claim I
photocopied it on that day and it exists in the unused
material, the original copy.
Q. You may well have photographed a magazine on that day. What
I am suggesting is --- A. Very well, for this joke.
Q. I am suggesting that you never sent up that document about
the April Fool's joke to the Cypriot High Commission.
A. It would not make the prosecution case any stronger if I
had, would it?
Q. I want to move on to one other matter. You remember you
were telling us that the minister to whom you spoke was
Mr. Jacob, Iacovou? A. Yes.
Q. And you are in no doubt at all that the effect of the
conversation between you was that he was saying in terms to
you, "The demand documents have been received in Cyprus"?
A. No, or ---
Q. Just think about it carefully before you answer the question.
A. I'm afraid I don't remember the content of the
conversation at this stage.
MR. TEMPLE: I am not asking you about the content, I am asking
about the gist of it. You were very firm on it yesterday. I
want to see if you confirm my recollection. Are you telling
us when you had a conversation with Mr. Jacob I am being
correct ---
MR. BECKMAN: I thought it was Iacovou.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Yes, but he Anglicized [sic] it.
MR. TEMPLE: Let us call him Iacovou. You had a conversation
with Iacovou in which you told him in terms the Cyprus
Government had received the document? A. What I said - I
spoke to two ministers and between the two I was able to
ascertain the Cypriots were aware of what was going on. I
don't think they said to me they had actually received the
document.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: What you said was this: "I knew they
had received the first set from conversations with three
ministers, Iacovou, Foreign Affairs, Michaelides, Minister of
the Interior, and Veniamin, the Attorney General". A. No,
I thought I indicated Veniamin was a former Minister of
Defence and he was not aware of what was going on. The
Attorney General was Karaghiorges [sic]
MR. TEMPLE: I will ask for the note; I was on my feet this
morning. (To the witness): Do you remember that I asked
you in terms the names of the two ministers who had told you
that they had received copies, or a copy had been received by
the Cypriot Government? A. They did not say that a copy
had been received; they said that they were aware of whatever
it was that we were discussing to give me enough information
to know they had received the original documents.
Q. Are you now saying that it was merely an impression that you
received? A. As I say, I cannot remember the original
conversation. All I do know is that at that point I knew for
sure that the Cypriots had received it. There was another -
I also spoke to somebody else I forgot to mention yesterday,
a parliamentary candidate who is very close to me,
Mr. Andreas Halloumas, and evidence that has been given in
the statements shows I was 'phoning him up non-stop and
talking to him for many, many hours and he became extremely
concerned about my conversations. Now, Halloumas is very
deeply connected with politics and he also gave me a lot of
information to indicate exactly what I suspected, which is
what I said yesterday, that they had definitely received the
first document.
Q. Let us go back to the enquiry concerning Mr. Iacovou. I
want to know exactly what your evidence is with regard to the
conversations you had with him. A. Well, I remember they
accepted, or appeared to accept - one never knows what is in
someone's mind; I will not make that assumption - that they
accepted Digsby was genuine and that from the conversation I
received - the first set of documents, I gathered, had been
received.
Q. You are qualifying. You gathered from him? A. Yes, I left
this conversation knowing in my mind that these documents -
by the end of that day I knew the Cypriots had definitely
received this document.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: This is what I think you said: "I knew
they had received the first set. I was asking to use it as
evidence at a press conference but they failed the test. I
was fully aware that these had arrived. I spoke to two
ministers, Iacovou and Michaelides." A. Yes, in fact I
spoke, as I said, also to Andreas Halloumas who was a
parliamentary candidate at the forthcoming elections.
MR. TEMPLE: Did you speak to Iacovou about the press conference?
A. No, the press conference I didn't discuss with him at all.
Q. What did you discuss with him? A. You can get the flavour
of the conversation, that Digsby was making an attempt -
looking at the first - in fact, the first call that Mavrellis
received is not recorded but in general the conversation he
had with Mavrellis was the same sort of thing that would have
taken place with the others; all of them, not just the two,
Iacovou and Michaelides.
Q. With regard to Iacovou, you are saying he appeared to accept
that Digsby was genuine; correct? A. Yes, as Mavrellis
did. Whether Mavrellis really thought he was genuine or not,
who knows?
Q. And that you gathered from the conversation with Iacovou that
the demand document, had been received at the palace? A. I
cannot say whether it was directly from Iacovou or
Mr. Michaelides, or from a combination of both of them, plus
what I received from Halloumas.
Q. Why did you say earlier that you knew they had received the
first document from conversations with Iacovou and
Michaelides? A. And I add to that Halloumas.
Q. Why did you mention Iacovou's name? A. Because I 'phoned
him. I 'phoned his office. You have in the unused material
index cards with numbers and the names of the various Cypriot
ministries.
Q. What else did you say to Iacovou? A. As I say, I do not
remember the exact conversation that we had. It was
introducing myself to Colonel Digsby.
Q. Have you ever met him face to face? A. I must have seen
him on various occasions. I may even have been introduced to
him but I don't remember him really. The other minister I
mentioned I do know and I have met on a number of occasions
face to face.
Q. Finally I want to ask you about a matter you raised about
the driving licence, or what you thought was a driving
licence. Would you look at page 196. You say you were
staying at the Inter Continental Hotel and you tried to hire
a Mercedes; is that right? A. Yes.
Q. And that you used this document as what? A. I was asked
for proof of my identity and I produced this as being a
Cypriot driving licence.
Q. The gist of this is that it reads in translation: "I confirm
that this person uses the following drugs with the following
instructions", and that is the gist of it. A. I beg your
pardon, it says, "Husband to take as prescribed these drugs
at the following doses", and Kiki [sic] is my wife.
Q. Did you have any difficulty in understanding this particular
document? A. Did I have any difficulty?
Q. Yes, you knew perfectly well it was not a driving licence.
A. Then why did I try to hire a car with it?
Q. Did you think this was a driving licence in your mind?
A. Yes, I presented this as evidence of my identity as
Mr. Miller and it had my photograph on it.
Q. Mr. Miller? A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any documentation with his name? A. Yes, I
did have something that said "Miller".
Q. You certainly did. Think about it; what was it? A. It
was a driving licence.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, I wonder, in view of the answers he has
given with reference to Mr. Iacovou, that I can ask your
Lordship to adjourn until two o'clock?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Yes. You have nearly finished?
MR. TEMPLE: I have, my Lord.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I want to ask you one or two things; I
am a little mystified on some aspects. You are obviously an
intelligent man, I think we would all agree, and you are not
insane. You know that because you were examined and were
confirmed fit to plead and you are perfectly fit to plead. I
understood you to say that this was a serious test of the
efficiency of the Government of Cyprus, performed when you
were affected by drugs. That is your case, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. That is entirely your case, that it was a serious test of the
Cypriot Government, done by you when you were so much
affected by drugs that you would not have done it otherwise?
A. I deeply regret having done it.
Q. And wasting everybody's time, I am sure. A. Indeed, your
Lordship.
Q. Just assume that a court were to find, in Mr. Beckman's
phrase, that this document is a lot of rubbish, you accept,
do you not, that everyone involved took this very seriously?
A. I do, your Lordship, and I make no criticism of anyone
who did take this seriously. It was my inability to see how
serious it was. I was unable to comprehend what would happen
and the serious consequences from what I thought I was doing
was perfectly justified.
Q. You accept that right up to the moment of your arrest, and
indeed at this trial the High Commissioner's evidence which
we all heard, that everybody was very upset about what was
happening and was taking it seriously? A. Indeed, your
Lordship.
Q. Whatever the truth may be about the intention of your
document, they were taking it seriously. A. Indeed, and I
can see that very clearly. I make no excuse in that respect,
your Lordship.
MR. BECKMAN: Before your Lordship rises, perhaps we can deal
with the letter which has been found. (Handed to the
witness)
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Is that the one? A. Yes, your
Lordship, it is my British letter headed paper.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Keep it there. Mr. Beckman or
Mr. Temple will ask you questions about it later. Did you
want to address me about something when the jury have gone?
MR. TEMPLE: Yes, my Lord.
(The jury left the court)
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, it is only a very short matter. Your
Lordship will, I think, recollect that certainly the thrust
of the defendant's evidence was that he had spoken to these
three ministers, including Iacovou, and I certainly received
the firm impression from my note that he was saying in terms
that all three, especially Iacovou, had told him that the
demand document had been received.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: When I say I do not agree, you will
understand that my impression was from conversations with all
three of them he was satisfied the document had been sent and
he was, either by design or unconsciously, keeping his
options open.
MR. TEMPLE: Your Lordship knows the Crown's view as to the
nature of this case and the short position is simply this:
it actually so happens that the minister in question,
Mr. Iacovou, will be in London on Tuesday. May I say
straight away I hope I shall be the last one to prolong this
trial and I would not dream of calling him in rebuttal unless
it was for a good reason, but what I wanted to do was during
the course of the adjournment consider the position.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: That is my impression, for what it is
worth. I do not have a detailed note but I think at the
time he was not deigning to tell us which one told him. He
was keeping his options open. That was my impression.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, whilst on my feet, may I say there will be
no delays with regard to the Crown's ability to cross-examine
the electrical expert who I understand Mr. Beckman will be
calling.
(The trial was adjourned for a short time)
PANOS SYMEON [sic] KOUPPARIS: Recalled
Further cross-examined by Mr. Temple
Q. Mr. Koupparis, there are three final matters with which I
want you to deal. Would you have in front of you the letter-
head which you produced. Just so that the jury can
appreciate the position, would you please tell them the
address on that letterhead? A. The address is 57 Rythe [sic]
House Street, London SW1.
Q. Did you have access to or were you using those premises ---
A. I was living there.
Q. Just wait for the question, please. Did you have access to
or were you using those premises in January to April 1987?
A. No.
Q. When did you vacate your usage of those premises? A. I
cannot remember now; it was quite a while back.
Q. It was a long while ago, 1981, 1982. That is approximately
correct, is it not? A. Yes, I'm not exactly sure but it
was certainly before I went to Cyprus.
Q. Five years before? A. Yes.
Q. Cambanella was the name of the company you were purporting to
operate. A. It is a registered business name in the United
Kingdom.
Q. I will ask you the same question again. Were you at any
time using Symeon [sic] Cambanellos [sic] as your practical and everyday
name during the months of January to May 1987? A. Yes,
wherever there is a reference to Symeon [sic] Cambanellos [sic] in the
depositions and the exhibits I was using that as my practical
and everyday name, because that is what I believed it was.
Q. Secondly, do you remember I invited your attention to the
correspondence you had with Mr. Melville? A. Yes.
Q. I would like you to look at two further letters, document
pages 166 and 167. The document on page 166, was that
written or typed by you? A. It may have been. I'm not
terribly certain who actually typed it, but it would have
been done on my behalf.
Q. Who would be responsible for the wording of the letter?
A. I don't think it was the same situation as existed with
the other letter at all.
Q. The question, Mr. Koupparis, was who was responsible for the
wording of the letter? A. I believe that it was a lady
called Carol who helped me on that occasion to do some
typing.
Q. Did you dictate it to her? A. I think what happened is
that not so much dictated it but while she was typing I was
speaking out the words and then she was reading back what was
typed, and I do remember we had to go through several copies
until we had the final draft as it were, and then she typed
and you can see there is an awful lot of mistakes on these
copies. She wasn't particularly good.
Q. Over the page to 167. Had you had any contact with
Mr. Collischon [sic] or anyone else at Filofax with regard to this
letter? A. Yes, I telephoned them a number of times.
Q. What did you want of them? A. I wanted the exclusive
distributorship of all the Filofax products.
Q. Once again, would the position be that whoever may have
physically typed that letter, it was at your behest?
A. Yes.
Q. Finally, can we go back to 159? I just want to look at the
wording of this letter with you again. We are agreed that it
was at your behest "You have now had" - then brackets - "of
weeks to evaluate our offer". Clearly this would have been
written around 6th or 7th April? A. Not necessarily.
Q. Why not? A. Why put it down to 5th, 6th April?
Q. It is consistent with being written on 6th, 7th April.
A. Not at all, Mr. Temple. It merely assists the
prosecution case to try and prove it was written ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Tell us what is the date. A. I have no
idea what the date is, your Lordship, but I cannot see any
reason why it should have been written on the 5th or 6th.
MR. TEMPLE: The reality is it is not going to be written before
6th April, otherwise the word "weeks" would not be there.
A. I don't see the logic of that. It could have been
written immediately afterwards.
Q. "You have now had so many weeks to evaluate our offer." It
would suggest the person who had received the offer has had
it for more than one week; correct? A. Not necessarily.
Q. Is that a reasonable interpretation? A. No, I wouldn't
have said so.
Q. Let us go on: "The time for hesitation is now over. You
must now act. A copy of the report is enclosed in the event
that you have lost the original." If, as you maintain, you
were told that the original had indeed been delivered, why
did you use that phrasing? A. This to me is obviously -
the way it says, "Don't laugh, you have succeeded in losing
half your island", is a reference to the fact they failed the
test and they just ---
Q. Let me ask you to pause, Mr. Koupparis. I hoped the question
was simple and I could have directed your mind to answer.
Will you please try and answer the question? A. Yes,
sorry. You must have misunderstood the question if you
weren't happy with my answer. Would you rephrase it?
Q. I was not happy with the answer. The words at which I am
asking you to look are, "You must now act. A copy of the
report is enclosed in the event you have lost the original."
Why was that form of words used if in your mind you had been
told and accepted that the original demand document had been
delivered? A. For exactly the same reason that Digsby
always played along with the fact that they were denying they
received the report.
Q. When do you say this letter was written? A. I cannot say
with any certainty when it was written.
Q. You see the final paragraph: "Our next communication which
will follow shortly". Was that a reference to the purported
telex sent up to the High Commission in London? A. No.
Q. Because the dates would match, would they not? A. That
would be a convenient interpretation but I do not see how you
can jump to this conclusion. This could have been many weeks
after the event, just as an aid memoire [sic] for the joke aspect,
"Don't laugh, you have succeeded in losing half your island."
RE-EXAMINED BY MR. BECKMAN
Q. Mr. Koupparis, just a few matters I want to ask you. I want
to go back to the beginning of your evidence just to cover a
few items that might have arisen. When you were in the
magistrate's court you told us, in reply to Mr. Temple, that
your lawyers advised you against giving evidence in the
magistrate's court. If I may say so, 99.9 times one does
not, but your wife's lawyers wanted you to do so? A. Yes,
it was suggested and I agreed.
Q. So is this right or wrong: what you were doing was on behalf
of your wife at that time? A. I was receiving a
considerable amount of pressure from the entire family at
that time, because of course they were very distressed by how
my wife had been drawn into this and the fact that she spent
nine weeks in prison previously. It was a tremendous amount
of pressure on me from members of the family, so I felt, you
know, I had a duty to do whatever I could.
Q. We now know that your wife has been released by direction
not guilty. Now I want to come on to something else. You
remember you were referred to the document which refers - you
were asked about a document you had written to some company
or other relating to a parking clamp; do you follow?
A. This is to the Ministry of Transport.
Q. It was put to you about how important it was and so on, the
clarity of it. Now tell me this: the parking clamp itself,
did it exist? A. Only in my imagination.
Q. So that had the Minister of Transport said, "Let us see it",
the joke is on them, it would not have existed? A. I would
have been in considerable difficulties at that point.
Q. Equally, had someone said to you, "Right, now let us see a
PIG in Cyprus", did any exist? A. There were no PIGs in
Cyprus.
Q. Let me take you to something else, the $200. A question was
put about the $200 bills. This was the question: "Did you
deliberately put in an error concerning this?" That was the
way it was put to you. Now let me reverse it in simple
English, with respect: did you put it in deliberately?
A. Indeed, it was a $200 bill, a non-existent $200 bill.
Q. I wanted the question reversed so it is easier to answer.
Let me now ask another question: page 498. You were asked a
question several times about this at the bottom, "I
anticipated I had obtained £25,000 from the Cypriot High
Commission just before I was arrested". You were not asked
about the second sentence. Would you read it because it
relates to the £25,000. A. "I was going to buy certain
items I felt I needed and take to Cyprus for the use of the
Cypriot Government.
Q. Who was speaking there? A. That was me; I was speaking.
Q. You were asked in relation to the first sentence if you were
telling the truth; do you recall that? A. Yes.
Q. I will now ask you in relation to the second sentence,
equally were you telling the truth? A. That is what I
believed.
Q. I want to now take you to page 153. That letter is dated 1st
April 1987. You were asked so far as that letter is
concerned whether in fact it had been sent. It was suggested
it had not. Do you believe it had been, or not? A. As far
as I am aware it was sent.
Q. Do you know when it was sent, or not? A. In order to have
arrived on 1st April it would have to have been sent the very
day or two earlier, and in fact I made arrangements in Cyprus
for it to be posted.
Q. Posted to where? A. To the Presidential Palace.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Was this found in Cyprus?
MR. BECKMAN: This was found in London. This was a copy, I
believe, of one that was found.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. BECKMAN: It is dated 1st April. Why did you use the phrase,
as far as you can recall, in the fourth paragraph, "We call
it the 'piggy bank'"? A. Well, the piggy bank, it is just
an expression to show just how ridiculous the whole thing is.
Piggy bank; it is an allusion to pigs.
Q. Is there any other allusion in that sentence to pigs?
A. Well, if you look through carefully there are all sorts
of allusions in there concerning pig in a poke for instance,
"poking around".
Q. That is in the next paragraph. A. And there is also - I
think there is something that the Brothers Grimm wrote
concerning pigs and various other things that were apparent
in my mind at that time, which was the basic theme running
through the whole thing, squeaking; a reference to squeaking
there.
Q. I think pigs squeal rather than squeak, but perhaps in Cyprus
they squeak. Can I ask you this last question: the learned
judge posed a question to you before the luncheon adjournment
and it was this: "Do you accept" - or words to that effect
and I trust I get it right - "Do you accept that your demand
was taken seriously?" A. Well ---
Q. And you told us that you were sorry that it would seem it had
been taken seriously; correct? A. That is correct. I am
extremely distressed that this whole thing has happened.
Q. Now let me ask you a further question following upon that
one: was it your intention it should be taken seriously?
A. It was never my intention to cause any distress for
anyone. It was merely ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: That is not actually an answer to the
question. It was never your intention to cause distress; was
it your intention that it should be taken seriously?
A. Indeed no. I did not imagine that anyone would.
MR. BECKMAN: Mr. Koupparis, by now you are learning questions
answered shortly are the best unless it is essential to carry
on further. Now, when you say you accept that they did cause
distress, are you speaking of what you knew at the time or
what you have seen by the evidence in court? A. What I
have seen subsequently.
Q. Did you expect that any experts would be distressed by the
validity of the threat? A. Not at all.
Q. Why not? A. To me I had gone out of my way to make sure
that the whole thing was nonsensical.
Q. Whether it be misguided or not, funny or not, your references
to pigs, were they intended to be serious or to be taken
humorously, being released? A. They appeared humorous to
me and I assumed everyone else would take them in the same
way.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Would you look at page 153 again. I
am not quite clear about this. That is a draft or copy of
a letter, is it not, which was found in London, together with
another set of the demand documents? A. Yes.
Q. And other things also. You say it was sent from, Cyprus?
A. Your Lordship, a copy of this, the original copy.
Q. However, you said, "I was interested to see it was posted in
Cyprus". A. Yes, your Lordship.
Q. You came to London on 26th March, did you not? A. Yes.
Q. Who do you say posted it in Cyprus and when? A. A person
that I asked - her name and address appear in the depositions
your Lordship, and she was totally unaware of what it was,
but I made arrangements for her to have the envelope which
was sealed and stamped and addressed, and on a telephone call
from me she would post it.
Q. Did you give the instruction? A. Yes, your Lordship, I
did.
Q. When, you have not told us that? A. By telephone.
Q. When, was the important part? A. The day before 1st April
or the - it was either the day before or the day before that,
the penultimate day of the month.
Q. You say that was addressed to the President of Cyprus?
A. Your Lordship.
Q. As far as we know, it was never received at all. A. I have
no way of knowing whether the person that I asked actually
carried out the ---
Q. You cannot say that it was posted, can you? A. I did
receive a letter whilst I was in prison which indicated - it
was very badly written, it was indecipherable what was being
said because the person is not English, and it did make some
mention of a letter, "I did what you said", or something like
that, but I don't know whether that is a reference to the
actual letter, so I cannot be absolutely certain.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: You have cleared up what I did not
understand.
(The witness withdrew)
Index | Previous | Next