Dyer-M-Stuart 2
Home Up Dyer-M-Stuart 3 M-Stuart Reply 2




Mark Moody-Stuart

Shell Transport & Trading Company p.l.c.

Shell Centre


London SE1 7NA.


5 May 2000.

Dear Mark Moody-Stuart,


                             You will recall that I wrote to you on the 4th February 1999. In your 8 February 1999 response to my letter of the, which I thank you for, you incorrectly stated:

“Your (my) failure to identify the location of the building you allege was demolished and the site for the waste makes constructive dialogue impossible. Your refusal to identify witnesses makes further investigation by us extremely difficult.”          

As I informed, Mr.Graeme Sweeney and his colleagues at our meeting, to quote my letter to Mr. Sweeney of the 8/2/99 (copy enclosed).

“As the tapes, of our meeting of 12/1/99, demonstrate I offered to hand over virtually my entire body of evidence, excluding the names of any individuals, who would not authorise disclosure. That evidence would have included the tens of thousands of pages of ‘documents’ in my possession. Details of the nuclear dumpsites, health statistics, identification of the building, tapes, etc., etc. Unfortunately you rejected that outright. So much for your assertion (excuse) that I have refused to provide the required information, and hence your inability to investigate matters. This, incidentally, from a Company that has outright refused to supply me with virtually any information, whatsoever!”

Furthermore, my invitation to jointly interview former employees I have identified, who could, with Shell’s official sanction, reveal the truth, was rejected outright.

For the record I have previous made these offers to Shell’s Legal Director, Richard Wiseman.  Apparently all fell on stony ground.

 As you can see, your unfounded statement can now be corrected.



  Yours sincerely,





John Dyer.