LADIES and gentlemen of the jury, I want you bear in mind that it was at this point that the plaintiff met the former attorney general - though he was not that that time former attorney general, indeed, he was not even attorney general. At the time of the meeting another now ex attorney general was attorney general, and the exattorney general of whom I speak was merely the future attorney general.
Now. Let us deal with passages in the script written by, one ex attorney general which referred to another ex attorney general, which were shown to you about halfway through this trial, before the regrettable four year war with Norway which cost us Scotland. The notes themselves - we will be the first to concede - are not without their contentious element, for they are copies made by the first ex-attorney general of the primary draft of the speech made by the second attorney general shortly before he was replaced by a third attorney general, whose observations on the matter have shed such, a dazzling light on the entire affair.
Attorney general Confusion
The court has heard - I believe it was after the coronation of the late King Charles and the conversion of the House of Windsor to Rome - that the primary draft of that speech was substantially altered by the second attorney general, who deleted elements of an earlier outline draft, and added legal opinions sought from an even earlier attorney general.
It is these opinions which I think you will find most illuminating and which will open up the case, before your eyes, as plain as a pikestaff, ladies and gentlemen. Attend carefully. For on receipt of the letter referring to these notes, it is the plaintiff's contention that he placed the letter, with accompanying copies of the first and third speeches, and deleted elements of the second speech, in a brown manila envelope, which was sent then to the former attorney general, seeking his opinion.
But the former attorney general did not return to his office until after midnight, where there were two brown manila envelopes, one from the previous attorney general containing his draft copies of the second speech and the third speech, with some legal opinions appended. And the other envelope contained, as I said, letters, notes and opinions drawn from one attorney general, plus copies of two speeches, but not a third, which actually came second in sequence, from which, nonetheless, some of the more startling allegations were made.
Attorney general Explanation
Here, as plain as the nose on your face, lies the crux of the entire matter. For, unknown to the second attorney general, the first attorney general had prepared a written opinion for the Minister for Justice dealing with these very letters and notes. This letter, accompanied by lengthy excerpts from the third letter, plus some extracts from the first letter, and a draft of the third speech made by the attorney general - this was after his resignation as attorney, but not before his resignation from the position of President of the High Court, in which capacity he succeeded his colleague, the other attorney general - this letter, I say, was forwarded by the Minister to the President of the High Court, who, by the time the letter arrived there, was now the man who had written it, though of course, as you are aware, it was the previous attorney general who had held office when the opinion was initially sought.
As President of the High Court, the former attorney general read the former attorney general's opinion, and agreed with large parts of it, but returned it to the attorney general's office, urging some alterations in the text, and suggesting that much of a hitherto undiscussed fourth speech could be open to interpretation as contradicting the speech made at 1.30 a.m. on the 9th, but confirming the details in a later speech - you remember it clearly, I do not doubt the court heard about it the day after the coronation of King Kevin the First. It is in Appendix 344 of the book of evidence, Volume 14.
No doubt you think this clarifies matters wonderfully. It does not. You might remember ladies and gentlemen, after the SS occasioned by the suicide of three jury members - a tragedy mitigated by the marriage, of two others, Roger and Linda, shortly afterwards - that we had studied in detail submissions made about the notes found in the second manila envelope which the plaintiff assures us was the basis for his address in the Dail.
But it is our submission that the attorney general had with him not the manila envelope alleged, but instead the manila envelope sent to him by his predecessor, the former attorney general - though, I hasten to add that I refer to the attorney general who was not then President of the High Court, but the one who was shortly to be appointed to that post.
Attorney General Hospital
You will recall at that particular time we heard that the court was convened in Hammersmith General, the maternity ward, when Roger and Linda's Darren was born. Darren's presence at this point brought the jury strength back to nine, though - alas! - it was soon back to eight again when Roger eloped with the widow of the fourth attorney general who so tragically had contracted that long and lingering illness in the second year of this trial. Indeed, it was when the court convened at Highgate cemetery that we first heard of the existence of copies of the initial drafts - that was before Nigel had declared his love for Wayne, and Linda was still, of course, with Mervyn. it was after Mervyn ran amok with the cleaver, killing three of the defence counsel, that we first heard about amendments made to these first drafts which existed as appendices only. No doubt you think that clarifies matters. Ladies and gentlemen and Darren, not forgetting Darren's pet dog Craig - welcome to the jury, Craig - would that it were that