Dyer-Wisereply 10
Home Up Dyer-Wisereply 11 Shell's lawyers




R M Wiseman

Legal Director

Shell UK limited

Shell-Mex House

London WC2R 0XD.

Your Ref:  LSUK 

31 May  2000. 


Dear Mr Wiseman, 

Thank you for your fax, and subsequent letter of 26 May 2000. 

First, I am candidly offended and surprised to find that after eighteen months of correspondence, numerous phone calls and faxes, you only thought it right and proper at this very late stage to inform me that you are Shell Research Limited’s lawyer. I quote: 

‘I am responding on behalf of Shell Research Limited as its lawyer.  Shell Research Limited has no internal lawyers of its own and the legal work (like that of all other Group companies) is distributed amongst those lawyers employed by Group companies having the appropriate experience and expertise. it was on this basis that Mr Sweeney and his predecessor sought advice from lawyers in Shell U.K. Limited. 

As to my own position I hope it will be sufficient to say that on I January 1999 my employer changed from Shell U.K. Limited to Shell International Limited. My job, however, did not change (you will also have noted that in the mean time my address has changed).’ 

Because of your ‘surprising’ disclosure, I decided to carry out a preliminary check I now discover that you are listed as a Director of Shell Research Limited, making the above statement wholly incomplete and inadequate as to a full and factual account of your position.  I further discover that you are listed as Legal Director of Shell Chemicals UK Limited. Both Shell Research and Chemicals have, as I pointed out to you in my letter of 29 October 1998, obtained benefit from the nuclear research programs carried out at Thornton Research Centre, and as such are legally, and morally, liable for the consequences of the actions of 1968.  Yet, while now declaring your position as Shell Research Limited’s lawyer, you still make no mention of fact that you are listed as a Director of Shell Research and Legal Director of Shell UK Chemicals. Up until now, I had assumed as Legal Head of Shell UK, that you would be a person of some precision, propriety, and integrity. Hence, I had until now taken your stated company position within Shell, at face value. 

I shall now deal with the substantive points of your letter. 

I note your statement that you are, and have been, authorised to speak on behalf of the Shell Group. 

The reason I set-out questions 1 to 5, are as per my letter of the 5/10/88: 

“The requested company information stems from the nature of crimes committed. As you are no doubt aware, in the UK, a limited liability company has a separate legal status independent of its shareholders. Furthermore, a limited liability company being an abstract person cannot manage itself, it requires directors. The position is somewhat more complex than usual, due to Shell’s ownership structure. 

Your contention that you (Shell UK Limited) acts in an advisory capacity for the Royal Dutch/Shell group in the UK, is, with respect, a red herring.  Only the directors and or the personnel involved, of the company’s concerned can answer questions of such a serious nature. In matters of this gravity you can act as a conduit, but no more. Unless or until you have specific, written, authorisation at a suitable level.” 

I am afraid you are simply wrong about my having concerns regarding ‘incorrectly’ citing Shell Company’s in the issuing of writs.  I am at a loss to understand your reference to our conversation, as I never even hinted, in our conversation, that I was concerned that my issuing of proceedings would be met by you (Shell) raising objections as to the particular Shell Company being ‘wrongly’ cited in any writ.   Not only that, until you raised the point in your letter it had, frankly never crossed my mind.  The facts are that I informed you that I was reading up and preparing (High Court) pleadings, for just a week or so, without any prior experience and was concerned that Shell, or your chosen solicitors, would employ legal means to seek to knock me out on legal ‘technicalities’.  You assured me, as Shell’s Legal head, that you (Shell) would not do so.

2&3  My offer to give Shell confidential undertakings was in order to reassure you (Shell) as a mean of addressing this issue.  I have bent over backwards to try to accommodate Shell.  Every time I offer a means of reassuring or pacifying you, it is met by either instant dismissal, requests for further qualification, curt replies or seemingly endless objections or more likely a simply refusal to respond, despite your undertakings to comprehensively answer my questions.  

Your use of that old standby ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ is merely an oratorical device, in order to avoid addressing the issue.  The use of this cliché is most unsuited to the present situation.

I understand that your position is to take exception to my assertions that you will not behave in a ‘responsible’ manner.  I am sure you can understand (why else would you wish me to define, my use of the term ‘responsible’) my concerns as I have endlessly set them out, and my desire to find a means of tackling them in a mutually acceptable way.  Why then do you forever reject any proposal I make out of hand, without putting anything in its place?

I never alleged that you had destroyed evidence. My reference to destroying evidence was in respect of my concern regarding the possible treatment of my ‘new’ body of evidence: 

‘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.’  

The ‘or’ was in respect to otherwise, i.e. in the future. 

Your statement that: 

The only suggestion that we are prepared to consider further is that you make available to us via independent third parties if you wish, copies of your evidence.” 

Can only be viewed as a deliberate and calculated slamming of the door in my face.  

Why, may I enquire, would I possibly be asking for ‘independent third parties’ if it were simply to deliver my evidence?  You surely cannot be unaware that a most suitable candidate already exists- he’s usually called the postman. They tend to walk up and down the path in the early morning! 

‘If you (I) wish’ indeed.  

You have now gone, within the space of four day’s, from insisting that Shell wanted to address the issue in a responsible manner, but you asserted that Shell were unable, because you (wrongly) inferred that I had demanded that Shell had in effect, to admit ‘guilt’ prior to obtaining my body of evidence.  Subsequent, to my informing you that I have never said, nor implied, any such thing, quite the reverse, you forcefully and repeatedly pressed me to define what I meant by my use of the term- ‘responsible’. 

Following my spelling out my use of the term, in my last letter, please explain Mr. Wiseman how you could have ever possibly envisaged that my desire to ensure that Shell will act in a responsible manner, as set-out, could be met/validated by you forwarding your ultimatum?   The ultimatum amounts to in effect, Shell agreeing to accept the delivery of my evidence by special courier.  

4.         Thank you.

5.        The purpose of my quoting from our conversation of the 22/5/00 was, in part, that I candidly could not see how you could have possibly misunderstood the position following our conversation. Since you now fully accept what I had previously told you, by my exclusively quoting from the same conversation, I am at a loss to understand how the ‘misunderstanding’ could have arisen in the first place. 

Your point regarding my letters is taken. However, I assure you that my letters are not constructed in order to make things difficult for you.  If I have caused you ‘difficulties’ they are entirely of your (Shell’s) own making.  If Shell desired, as per your undertakings, this matter could have been, and could be, sorted out in a relativity short period.  You may care to reflect that I was forty-two when I started the investigation I am now fifty-five.  The cost to my family and myself has been immense. By the way, this is now the second time you have inferred that you would prefer me to pursue matters through the courts, than try to resolve them with Shell in a reasonable manner. You will recall that you ended our last discussion by inviting me to purse my claim to protect my rights. 

You state that:

‘Boiling all of this down, I think the situation we have reached is this: 

1.  You have offered to provide us with your evidence (excluding that which is confidential) via independent third party experts whose identity we would agree on between us. 

2.  In return we would undertake to consider the allegations seriously and not untruthfully to misrepresent your evidence.’ 

How you ‘boiled down’ my proposal to the above, will, I suspect, remains one of life’s little mysteries. However, you will be relieved to find there is no need to ‘boil the situation down’. As I have previously made the ‘situation’, painstakingly clear as per my last letter: 

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

The reason for the access being that the ‘experts’ will require to test the evidence.  I shall, for instance, be providing documents regarding the nuclear undertakings/research programs carried out and the personnel employed at/by Shell Thornton and elsewhere.  Selfevidently, my evidence will have to be validated-this will no doubt come as a surprise, but I and many others will consider Shell will be somewhat less than totally impartial when it comes to evaluating the evidence.   

Many other issues will arise that necessitate the appointed ‘experts’, having had full access to my evidence, having access to Shell’s records. 

For instance; when I hand over a copy and transcript of my interview with a former senior Shell Thornton Technical Manager, in which the not only recalls the decommission/demolition job, he correctly identified the location of the site, which he states housed a (nuclear) ‘research reactor’.   As I have stated, he went on to explain the reason/purpose for the reactor and the nuclear research programmes.  Now selfevidently, this was, for me, a major breakthrough.  However, I was not prepared to simply take what I had been told at face value.  Hence, I spent several years tracking down the required documentation in order to be able to either stand his first hand accounts up or down.

You may not be surprised to lean that the ‘Manager’ told the truth.  So that not only shall I be able to hand over this interview, along with others, I shall at the same time be able to supply irrefutable documentive evidence that Shell Thornton and it’s employees were carrying out precisely the nuclear research programs as per the Managers account.  I hardly need to state that it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do the Cobalt-60 source/labyrinth, as the Manager, repeatedly makes clear.  The ‘experts’ will want to explore with various Shell Companies concerned, the submitted evidence. 

Another point at issue, I shall require the ‘experts’ to examine, is my assertion that personnel at Shell were aware of the Narrative’s sham nature from the beginning. 

The absurdity of the Narrative is such, that a moment’s critical thought and examination will reveal its inherent implausibility.  Ignoring the fact that I know the who and how carried out the Cobalt-60’s demolition.  What follows is a little piece I intended to enclose in an earlier letter.  However, following your assertion that the Narrative was an honest mistake, I felt it was not appropriate, as I was under the, apparent, illusion that Shell were going to examine how this ‘issue’ could be properly addressed. 

‘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.

A portion of my evidence will, probably fall outside of the ‘experts’ field; hence they would not only seek your comments and access to your records they would almost certainly wish to consult with suitable medical personnel.  

For instance; part of the evidence, I shall be forwarding, concerns the fact that the wives of two of the decommission personnel who were in the closest contact with the nuclear ‘waste’ at Thornton, gave birth to a number of ‘deformed’ children- post Thornton.

The condition of the children was such, that both sets of parents were independently informed that not only would the new born not survive, they were further advised that in view of the babies condition, viewing would only cause further distress.  After a number of such ‘births’, one of the fathers demanded to see his newborn child.  He was distraught beyond words, to find that a part of the child’s head (back) was not formed, to quote the father’s (emotional) words- ‘John, part of its head was missing’.   

The child, as per the others, was allowed to die within hours of the birth. Before the decommissioning, none of the people in question had ever experienced any such ‘difficulties’.  Before working at Thornton, they had six healthy children between them.  

There is, as far as I have been able to establish no history or record by any of the men’s or their wife’s families/relatives giving birth to 'deformed' children, and or having trouble with conceiving healthy children.  For the record, neither of the women ever gave birth to a child that lived post Thornton.   

If after reading all this, you carry on as previously then I feel I can now do no more via correspondence.  You will recall that I closed my last letter constructively, by asking you, if my proposals were unacceptable, to forward any proposals of your own.  In response, you issued a curt ultimatum, combined with a second message that you would prefer me to seek personal redress via the courts. Please note that I intend to progress, so I must request that you respond in a reasonable time.  You will be aware that I wrote to Mr. Graeme Sweeney, Managing Director, Shell Research Limited, on the 5 May, I am still awaiting a reply. 


Yours sincerely,


John Dyer.