Dyer-Wisereply 17
Home Up Dyer-Wiseman 18 Wiseman letter Shell's lawyers




R M Wiseman

UK General Council

Shell International Limited

Shell Centre

London SE1 7NA.

Your Ref:  LSUK 

27 June  2000.


Dear Mr Wiseman, 

Thank you for your fax of 27 June.  You state that I am imposing unacceptable condition. Why?  As I have not only welcomed a full investigation into my entire body of evidence, I have insisted on it, while Shell is impeccable opposed to any similar investigation regarding your own records. Others will draw their own conclusions.  Incidentally, if you would have accepted any of my numerous offers all of this could have been avoided.  But no, your ‘concerns’, are I believe exposed for what they are, a cynical ploy to protect Shell.  The fact that Shell has dumped tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste, and that the nuclear waste is ‘buried’ in one of the most densely populated section of the UK, appears to pose no great moral problems to Shell.  I estimate that it is likely that hundreds of thousands, or possibly even more, will either be affected, or fear that they have been effected by/from Shell’s nuclear waste.   

I thank you for the information regarding Ms Morrison’s departure. However, following your failure to answer my questions regarding Ms Fran Morrison, I have spoken to her and obtained the date of her departure.  More importantly, Ms Morrison informs that a number of people were involved in the construction Shell’s Narrative of the 7 February 1994.  As I intend to interview and to name all those responsible for the construction of Shell’s Narrative, in my writ(s), I request you forward their names. Should you refuse I will endeavour to have them named, and if necessary, subpoenaed.  It will be interesting to see if they respond in a similar manner as Ms Morrison. 

You will not be surprised to discover that Ms Morrison’s response to my telling her that- ‘you made a total lie up, a piece of fiction..’ (the Cobalt-60 Narrative), was not disbelief, outrage and shock, she declined to even threaten to counter sue me, rather she replied: ‘I can’t really be accountable for that, I expressed the Company’s view’. 

 She claimed and repeatedly emphasised that she was (just) an employee of Shell.  Ms Morrison maintained that my ‘issue’ was with Shell, not her.  She repeatedly stated that she was no longer employed by Shell, and went on, the Narrative, was/is ‘Shell’s views and Shell’s issue, and not MINE (her emphasise).  She further states that all the documents were handed down to Richard Wiseman when she left the Company.

Ms Morrison, further maintained- ‘any work I did on it was on behalf of Shell, as an employee of Shell’.  Ms Morrison states/claims that all she ever was, was a representative and employee of Shell.  Ms Morrison will make an interesting witness.  Her line appears to amount to the classic ‘I was only carrying out orders’, defence.  Further, I believe that Shell will find that in the face of such serious charges, that I believe I will sustain at the trial, that many other witnesses will look to there own self-interests. 

Incidentally, in view of Ms Morrison’s statement that she handed down the ‘Thornton’ files on to you, it follows that any claim by you, prior to her handing down the files, of wholesale client confidentiality will be vigorously disputed, as the files were the ‘property’ of your media public relations set-up, hence were not the legal departments.  Furthermore, your assertion, to me, that you are acting as a (mere) staging post to pass on my mail to the ‘defence committee’ my words, not yours, will be further grounds for challenging any attempt at wholesale client confidentiality. 

Despite the hierarchy of Shell, and because of the undeserved consequences for the thousands of completely innocent men, women and children, I am going to give it one last try. For in truth your position is unsustainable. To illustrate this reality, you appear not to even understand that Shell already has, despite your repeated requests for, conclusive evidence of the truth of my ‘allegations’. 

You will recall that you closed your letter of the 8 June thus:

‘Without concrete evidence either given direct or through a third parry 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

‘Your (mine) 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.  

For the record, two men armed with crowbars, with which they levered the labyrinth ‘bricks’ apart, demolished Thornton’s Cobalt-60 Cell/labyrinth/laboratory or whatever you want to call it.  The building was not as per your Narrative’s misleading, to put it kindly, description: 

‘The Cobalt 60 laboratory was a high-density concrete structure 20 feet x 20 feet x 11 feet high, built of concrete blocks, with 4 foot thick walls.’ 

There was no ‘high-density concrete structure 20 feet x 20 feet x 11 feet’, the Cobalt-60 Laboratory had one single, small, concrete block, in which three one inch diameter stainless steel pipes were embedded.  Two of the pipes were sealed off with blanking caps, at the point they came out of a concrete block.   

The purpose of the two ‘spare pipes’ was in the event of a pipe being scarred, the winding mechanism fouling/jamming, or otherwise becoming unreliable another pipe could be utilised.  The one/single ‘concrete block’ in the Cobalt-60 labyrinth was demolished with the aid of a jackhammer. It is very illustrative to compare the two jobs. The reactor/testing cells’ decommissioning employed sixteen ‘workers’; this total does not include any of the Shell or Harwell personnel present at the decommissioning, nor the ‘criminals’.  The operation required eight Ford D1000 tipping wagons, engaged for weeks/months to carry away and dump your nuclear waste, I have tracked down and interviewed the haulage company’s ‘manager’, together with numerous haulage drivers, he priced the job and recalled it and correctly pointed out its location on your Thornton site. The team further consisted of, a Drott 995K which was employed for the duration, along with an old ‘demolition’ crane. A ‘new’ crane was originally brought to the Thornton site-I have tracked down and interviewed the crane company’s ‘manager’-however, once the hire ‘manager’ was informed/realised that the ‘Lads’, had to go especially to the North-East of England to specifically pick up the largest and heaviest metal ball (tup) demolition/destruction instrument in the UK, (for the heaviest ‘smasher’ on Merseyside did not even impact on the reactor) he quickly swapped cranes!  Even this ‘North-East smasher’ had immense problems, breaking up your reactor/testing cell, that is quite enough for now. 

Leaving the above aside, if you really desired and with a little bit of good will, the assurances/guarantees hurdle, need not prove impossible. If you would change policy and become serious about this, then I believe a sensible solution, regarding the review of my evidence and the other issues, could quickly be achieved.  For the record, nothing would give me greater delight and satisfaction.  I fear that you simply have no idea, or are deceiving yourselves as of the extent of my research findings.  I am preparing my writ as we speak, however, it is not too late.  As I have stated I have no desire to ‘harm’ Shell that’s mere infantile jester politics.  Consequently, the resulting tragedy, if you do not stop it, is Shell’s, and Shell’s alone.  

Of course, you see this as weakness- you are mistaken. 

In closing you will recall that I offered, in my letter of the 9 June, in exchange for Shell acting in a similar manner, to construct my pleadings in the most cautious and responsible manner.  Your response to my offer, is not even to acknowledge it, rather you declare that you will act ‘most vigorous’.  In view of this, I need to direct your attention to the White Book’s rulings on pleadings, regarding illegal and or criminal actions. Hence, you will understand that my hands are tied. 

Accordingly, I give Shell this absolute assurance that if you go ahead and use ‘discovery’ to try an obtain my evidence, and then ‘declare/decide’ that you are not going to defend, I shall not under any circumstances whatsoever agree to any settlement, which ties my hands with regards to full publication. 

 Yours sincerely,


John Dyer.


c.c Mark Moody-Stuart.

c.c van den Bergh