27 March 2001
you for your letter of the 26 March.
(Richard Wiseman) have nothing to add to add to our previous correspondence.
Unless you have something new to tell us, please do not waste your time
and ours by continuing to repeat your unsubstantiated allegations which, as you
know, we do not feel the need to deny every time you repeat them.'
again construct an Aunt Sally, to divert attention away from your lies. For, I
never asked you to 'deny' any of my, or anyone else's, 'allegations'!
My letter of the 21 March was the second recorded delivery letter,
following your inability to respond/answer my original request of the 9 March,
requesting that you substantiate YOUR assertions-NOT MINE-contained in YOUR
letter of the 6 March 2001.
letter of the 6 March asserted (that):
of the points made in my (J Dyer)
letter of the 17 February 2001 to Joanne Chandler ('Assistant – Sustainable
Development' Shell International Limited), have (previously)
been dealt with by either yourself of D J Freeman (Shell's lawyers in this
I wrote/challenged you to detail were-
All of the points have been dealt with at length by yourself and D J
Freeman (Shell's lawyers)', I again challenge(d) you to forward
one single occasion (never mind 'at length') when either yourself, Shell and/or
Freeman's have answered the 'Armstrong' question?
I requested that 'for once directly answer a question, don't ignore it,
pretend you don't understand it- now either substantiate or withdraw your slur.'
to 'directly answer questions' (substantiate the Group's and your
lies), your rather ill tempered letter 'addresses' a fictitious query!
is little point in my again, requesting that you/Shell and/or Freeman's
substantiate the other assertions (lies) contained in YOUR letter of the 6
March, for your letter of yesterday speaks adequately for itself.