Fremanreply 4
Home Up Freemanreply 5 Freeman's letter Shell's lawyers




Marcus Rutherford

D J Freeman

43 Fetter Lane

London EC4A 1JU.

7 September 2000 

Your ref   MWR/PAS/011311999

Dear Mr Rutherford,

Thank you for your letter of the 6 September, and the enclosed information concerning Mr Van den Bergh. 

Unfortunately, the rest of your letter is once again grossly misleading.  First, the opening statement that I have only offered to supply evidence ‘on terms’ is a lie.  I quote from my letter of the 9 June 2000 to Shell’s legal director, Richard Wiseman:

‘You state (Shell):

“To this point we have been unable to find anything to collaborate your allegations…..” 

Wrong, wrong, wrong! 

At our meeting, of the 12 January 1999, I communicated to Mr Sweeney (Shell Thornton's MD) , how Shell could quickly authenticate the ‘first element of the story’, -the extensive cash payments.  Once this was verified, I informed the meeting (Shell), we could move forward.  As I informed Mr Sweeney, the bank’s ex-employees will be able to supply the required corroboration regarding the cash payments.  If you had any trouble locating the bank’s former employees, I shall be able to assist.  Consequently, I await your call.   

At the said meeting, I further detailed the plant and wagons used, the problems the ‘Lads’ and Shell encountered with the nuclear decommissioning, etc, etc.  

You State: 

‘However, to proceed we need something more concrete than your allegations alone. This is what Dr Sweeney asked for following your meeting with him at Thornton last year.’ 

Misleading, and erroneous!  

Following my meeting with Mr Sweeney, Mr. Hugh Dorans wrote, in his letter of the 18 January 1999: 

‘In addition, we believe that we would be able to make more progress if we were to discuss the events directly with the witnesses you have interviewed.’ 

I have repeatedly offered, as per my last letter, to jointly interview the ‘lads’ and former Shell employees, and others, who would quickly establish the truth.  You refuse! 

I offered to interview former Shell directors, who were aware of the sham nature of the Narrative, prior to its construction.  You refuse! 

I remind you that in spite of your (Shell) numerous undertakings, I now find that not only does Mr Sweeney refuse to respond to my letter of 5 May, ‘he asks you’ (Shell) to forward the fact that ‘he will not be responding’.  

There seems hardly any point in detailing further examples.’   

All of the above offers (and others), had no conditions attached to them, all were refused.  In the case of the ‘ex-bank employees’, no call received.  The offers were rejected because Shell’s strategy is to brazen its nuclear dumping crimes, and hence the consequences, out.  Consequently, the above offers, and any other offers I make, will be/were rejected, for once Shell, for example, contacted the said former bank employees, as per Graeme Sweeney’s (Thornton’s MD) undertaking, Shell would no longer be able to turn a ‘Nelson’s eye’ and pretend that it is unaware of the truth concerning its nuclear dumping. 

However, even the premise on which the assertion is based is a lie.  For I have supplied your clients with detailed evidence regarding ‘Shell Thornton’s’ secret military nuclear research, see for instance paragraphs 51-79 of my draft statement of claim.  Does your client dispute any of the nuclear research programmes, as set out in paragraphs 51-79, were carried out by Shell?  Please answer.

Despite the fact that the premise is a lie, even if one were to accept the premise ‘your’ point regarding ‘evidence’ it is mistaken.  For as I pointed out to Mr Wiseman in my letter of the 27 June 2000: 

‘You (Richard Wiseman) will recall that you closed your letter of the 8 June thus:

‘Without concrete evidence either given direct or through a third party reviewer, we are unable to proceed further.’ 

In view of this, I am afraid that you fail to understand the logic of your (Shell’s) previous ‘assertions’. 

For instance 24 May (Richard Wiseman wrote): 

‘Your assertion that in the past people on our side have been untruthful is completely denied’

You were just as emphatic in your letter of a mere a couple of days later:

‘The statement contained in paragraph 1 is not just “an official position”, it is the truth.’ 

You will further recall that you informed me in your letter of 2 October, that Shell Research Limited:

'provided all of the information (i.e. Shell’s Narrative of the 7 February 1994.) needed to respond to the assertions you (I) have previously made'  

It logically follows that if your people have not been lying, as per your repeated claims, then the Narrative was only incorrect because, as you claimed, they had assumed, wrongly, that the building in question was the Cobalt-60 labyrinth.  It follows that the (rest of) information in your Narrative must be, and is ‘factual’ i.e. you have records or were informed, presumably by former employees, as to the contents of your Narrative, otherwise you would have made it up i.e. lied. 

Now going back to your repeated demands for- ‘concrete evidence’, if your ‘assertions’ that Shell personnel did not lie is correct then your own Narrative of 7 February 1994, provides the ‘concrete evidence’.  For at virtually every point your Narrative vindicates the 'Boys' account of events.  For example:  

  1. Your Narrative of 7 February 1994, fully confirms the ‘Boys’ account that Harwell scientists were dressed, from head to foot in protective gear. Seeing they were not ‘dressed, from head to foot in protective gear’ for the demolition of the Cobalt-60 labyrinth, what other possible Shell Thornton ‘demolition/ job’ were the Harwell scientists dressed in the said manner, for?


  1. Your Narrative of 7 February 1994, fully confirms the ‘Boys’ account that the ‘scientists’ had Geiger counters.  Seeing the Geiger counters were not for the Cobalt-60, may one enquire, what were they for?  What other possible Shell Thornton ‘demolition/job’ were Harwell scientists armed with Geiger counters for?


  1. Your Narrative of 7 February 1994, fully confirms that the Geiger counters went like the ‘clappers’. Seeing as they did not ‘go like the clappers’ at the Cobalt-60 demolition.  What other Shell Thornton ‘job’ did the Geiger counters ‘go like the clappers’ for? 


  1. Your Narrative of 7 February 1994, confirms the ‘Boys’ account that there were ‘problems’ with the pipes.  What other Shell Thornton ‘job’ were Harwell scientists present at, dressed from head to foot in protective gear, when problems of retrieving ‘pipes’ were encounted?

Please directly answer the above questions, do not ignore them. As you can see, if your assertions that Shell personnel told the truth are maintained, it seems all along that you had the ‘proof’ yourselves.’                                                                                                                     ------------------------- 

I hardly need to inform that no ‘direct’ or other answer(s) were forthcoming, for self-evident reasons.   

As you can plainly see, my attempts to disclose my evidence to your clients have all been systematically rejected.  Now just what were, what you have chosen to label, my ‘unacceptable terms’?  My letter of the 26 May is instructive: 

‘As stated I am most concerned that Shell will use my body of evidence, as per 1993/4, to construct another ‘Narrative’, or destroy ‘internal’ evidence, and or otherwise seek a cover up.   In order that matters are ‘above board’, i.e. ‘verified’, the agreed, (Shell would have the absolute right of veto, so no concern as to who will have access) intermediates, would examine and evaluate the body of evidence, having free access, with the appropriate non disclosure undertakings, to the Shell Group.  It will be only correct and proper that I shall be called upon, by 'Shell' and or the appointed personnel, to justify any statement or assertion or piece of evidence, that I have made, submitted or supplied.   

Of course, I will give an unqualified undertaking to respect confidentiality. The appointment of scientific personnel and their ‘free’ access to evidence and its appraisal, would fully meet the “verifiable undertakings to behave in a responsible manner” criteria.’


This was rejected, as unacceptable, as per all my numerous other proposals.  I ask again why?  What possible reason would any responable public body have to reject the above proposal?   

I again offered in my 9 June 2000 letter to Shell:  

‘In light of the construction of a your Narrative of the 7 February 1994, you are perfectly well aware, that I am unwilling to simply hand over my evidence, without reasonable safeguards in place.  Thus, I regard your offers as little more than rudimentary PR exercises. 

Nevertheless, the one thing we can surely agree on is that this is far too important to allow personal feelings to be in any way a significant factor.  Consequently, I am prepared to hand over direct to Shell, a transcript of my interview with your former ‘Manager’, complete with official, Shell and other documents conclusively ‘demonstrating’ that Shell Thornton Research Centre and its employees were conducting the nuclear research programs as per the Managers account.  I have further good news.  I have located some of the personnel involved.  However, not all reside in the UK, some reside in Europe, others are wider a field.  

In return, after inspecting the evidence you will accept (the evidence) as being such, that you will accept my proposal(s) to have the remainder of my evidence subjected to the required scrutiny, as I have set-out.  In the event that you ‘find’ my evidence ‘unproven’ you would give an undertaking to jointly interview, the said identified personnel, so that the facts can be established.  If I may quote you ‘What have you to lose?’


So there you have it, further alternative methods ‘to collaborate (my) allegations’


This (above offer) was rejected, believe it or not, on the grounds of ‘costs’.  Having rejected my proposal on the grounds of ‘cost’, Shell employ D J Freeman hardly seems any point in continuing with this point. 

Further, the point regarding ‘your’ 11 August instruction is incorrect.  You closed ‘your’ letter of the 11 August thus: 

 We require you in any event, to lodge this letter at Court when you attempt to issue proceedings.’  

Well, if I were to lodge your letter, as per you instruction, it would self-evidently form part of my/the pleadings.  Once I insisted on a Statement of Truth, ‘your’ ‘requirement’ was instantly dropped.  It is interesting to note that you, the chairman of Shell Transport & Trading, -Mark Moody-Stuart and Shell’s legal head-Richard Wiseman have all now declined to sign a Statement of Truth in support of the letter. 

Seven years after Shell’s fraudulent Narrative (cover-up) resulted in the ‘cancellation’ of a current affairs television program that would have exposed Shell nuclear dumping crimes, along with it’s illegal surveillance, it’s campaign of personal abuse and vilification against myself, etc., etc., Shell now ‘suggests’ that I deal with the issue by informing the Health & Safety Executive.  Well, frankly it is akin to, say, complaining about Shell’s behaviour in Nigeria, to the local trading standards officer!  Despite this, I again repeat my offer of the 15 August last:  

‘I will undertake to do this (go to the Health & Safety Executive) if you (Shell) will now, give an unreserved undertaking on behalf of the Shell Group, as its Legal Head, that the Shell Group of Company’s will make all of the relevant records freely available, and that the relevant authorities will have free and unhindered access to any document or record or Company and or individuals, without reserve! Furthermore, you will hand over your files, as I undertake, as an act of goodwill.’ 

I await, now as then, your clients undertaking 

In view of your clients ‘call in the authorities’ defence, the following from my letter of the 31 May 2000 is enlightening:

 ‘For if the Narrative was true then my evidence must be counterfeit, the witness’s liars, and numerous official and other documents are forgeries!  The decommission ‘personnel’ must have conspired with dozens of others, including former Shell employees, forged and planted documents on several continents in order to fabricate one of the most complex and sophisticated conspiracies in history.  Why, they even managed to get inside the German, French and Belgium, to name three, patent offices and place highly technical counterfeit copies of their work.  They not only fooled the patent examiners and myself, moreover they must have had secretly planted moles inside the Shell organisation to intercept, and reply, to the patent examiners mail!  In addition, if this was not enough, on top of all of this, the ‘lads’ paid Shell’s and ‘others’ application fee’s and in the case of those patents which proceeded, the annual patent fee’s, which as you know, are exponential.  In addition, there you are, innocent owners of patents that you had no idea or knowledge of.  

Not content with stopping there, these Master Forgers, agree to publicly go on national television, I actually interviewed them with a full crew, camera, sound, lights complete with a producer in attendance, in presumably furtherance of there conspiracy against Shell, they repeat the most outrageous claims direct to camera, ready for national, and international, transmission.  Deliberate, for make no mistake these people are knowingly lying if your Narrative is ‘true’. 

No question of them misunderstanding, misremembering, or otherwise being mistaken arises.  These people have made the most shocking allegations, involving very substantial cash payments, by Shell, to known criminals in order for them to carry out wholesale dumping of nuclear waste (for the record the ‘criminal’ himself has in some detail authenticated to me the events leading up to, how they were contacted, cash payments. etc, and the actual ‘events’ at Shell Thornton site/job).  These allegations could leave the people making the allegations, themselves open to prosecution.  Yet six years on, you have not called in the police.’  In my last, and previous, letter I offered to jointly interview these people- you refused.’ 

Time is now running out, however I refuse to believe that there are none within Shell who are not appalled by its present strategy of (attempting to) brazening it out.  Consequently, I shall keep open all of my offers until the very last moment.  But be under no illusion I intend to press on. 


Yours sincerely,


John Dyer.