Main Index to all Sections

Section Three Index:
The Guardian's liars and their lies

Scott Trust trustee and editor of The Guardian, Alan Rusbridger

As already discussed in Guardian Lies Nos. 2 & 3, there is substantial evidence to show that it was Mohamed Al Fayed's failure to acquire a British passport that had motivated him to endorse The Guardian's 'cash for questions' story of October 1994 focusing on lobbyist Ian Greer's supposed corruption of Tory MPs.  The Guardian, however, insisted that the passport issue had no bearing on Fayed's decision to endorse its story. 
    To support The Guardian's posture, the paper's editor, ALAN RUSBRIDGER, submitted to Sir Gordon Downey's Parliamentary Inquiry written statements and notes of interviews of the lobbyist and the two MPs conducted by Guardian journalists David Hencke & John Mullin in July 1993.  In his accompanying letter Rusbridger explained that these documents proved that the two journalists had put Fayed's allegations to the two MPs during their interviews.  This, he said, disproved Hamilton's claim that the later events of Oct. 1994 could have prompted Fayed to invent false allegations at that time. 
    Rusbridger described repeatedly one of these documents as an extract from an 'affidavit' of Guardian journalist John Mullin.  However, Rusbridger did not provide Sir Gordon with its final page, showing Mullin's sworn signature.
    Hunt & Keith-Hill believed that, contrary to The Guardian's claims, back in 1993 Hencke & Mullin had only been investigating the lobbyist Ian Greer, nothing more, and that this 'affidavit' therefore bore a false account of the interview.  From their examination of other evidence Hunt & Keith-Hill believed additionally that Mullin was not involved in the conspiracy, and that, perhaps, he had not, in fact, authorised his 'affidavit' at all.
    Accordingly on 19 September 1997, at Hunt's beckoning, Neil Hamilton wrote to Sir Gordon requesting a copy of the final page bearing Mullin's sworn signature.  A few weeks later Sir Gordon replied, confirming that this document was, in fact, "a draft statement for Mr Mullin" - i.e. written by someone else - "which was never signed by him or served" - i.e. it had not been authorised by Mullin, least of all been sworn on oath.  In other words, this document had zero evidential value, though Sir Gordon had mistakenly considered it to be of vital importance as to whether Fayed had made (assented to) false allegations out of spite over his passport.

'Mr Hencke and Mr Mullin knew the key aspects of the story they were pursuing.  There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that the allegations were put squarely to Mr Hamilton…  We refer you to four separate sets of notes and affidavits from John Mullin and David Hencke concerning the interview they had with Mr Hamilton in July 1993...
    Mr Mullin's affidavit (Exhibit C) reads: 'We then went on the record, and I asked Mr Hamilton formally about the allegation that he had accepted payments from Mohamed Al-Fayed, and that these consisted of £2,000 per question, paid in cash. He denied that this was the case…'
    'The Inquiry therefore has another direct conflict of evidence.  If Mr Hamilton is right, then two senior reporters on The Guardian not only lied in their affidavits on which they knew they would be cross-examined, they also constructed fake notes immediately after seeing Hamilton and Smith.  If you choose to believe the word and notes of Mr Hencke and Mr Mullin - who are both as prepared to testify on oath to the Inquiry as they were to a court of law - then it follows that Mr Hamilton has perjured himself to the Inquiry.'

The words above are taken from a letter sent by Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger to Sir Gordon Downey, dated 19 February 1997.  Rusbridger was repudiating Neil Hamilton's claim that he wasn't asked about 'cash for questions' when he was interviewed by Guardian journalists David Hencke & John Mullin in July 1993. 
    Hamilton insisted that Hencke & Mullin had only asked him about his stay at the Ritz and his relationship with the lobbyist Ian Greer.  This, Hamilton said, supported his contention that Fayed had most likely made (given assent to) the 'cash' allegations against him out of spite in September 1994, just before The Guardian's article was published, at which time Fayed had just failed in the European Court of Human Rights to have quashed the DTI Inspectors' report that had prevented him and his brother from acquiring British passports.

'I sent you all I received from Mr Mullin under cover of my letter of 28 February…  My understanding was that the excerpt at 'C' covered all the references to his conversation with you.  I further understand that this was, in fact, a draft statement for Mr Mullin which was never signed by him or served.'

The words above are taken from Sir Gordon Downey's letter to Neil Hamilton dated 7 October 1997, which Downey sent in response to Hamilton's request for clarification as to the veracity of the document that Alan Rusbridger presented to Downey's inquiry as 'John Mullin's affidavit'. 
    Downey's reply proved that 'John Mullin's affidavit' had not been sworn on oath nor even signed, despite Alan Rusbridger describing it three times as an 'affidavit'.
    (Hamilton had written to Sir Gordon Downey at the request of Hunt & Keith-Hill.  From their examination of the evidence the two freelances had concluded, as it turned out correctly, that 'John Mullin's affidavit' contained false statements that were not made by Mullin nor made with his consent.  Hunt & Keith-Hill had drawn their conclusions after analysing hundreds of documents pointing to the fact that John Mullin was not involved in The Guardian's conspiracy.)

(Comment: Rusbridger presents a valueless piece of paper to a Parliamentary inquiry and describes it as a sworn statement repeatedly, and with conviction, to the point of suggesting that this worthless document is vital proof that Neil Hamilton perjured himself.)

Previous lie

Next lie