| The Dream Solution
- Documents |
13/06/95 - 1st Affidavit of P B O'Mahoney
This is the 1st Affidavit of P B O'Mahoney sworn on behalf
of the Defendant on June 1995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
BETWEEN:
(1) MICHELLE TAYLOR
(2) LISA BUCK (nee TAYLOR)
Plaintiffs
and
PATRICK BERNARD O'MAHONEY
(aka BERNARD PATRICK O'MAHONEY, PATRICK LAWSON and BERNARD
KING)
Defendant
AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICK BERNARD LAWSON O'MAHONEY
I, PATRICK BERNARD LAWSON O'MAHONEY, of Basildon, Essex, MAKE
OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
1.
I am the Defendant in these proceedings. I make this Affidavit
in response to the Affidavit sworn by Michelle Taylor and
in opposition to her application for an injunction in the
terms sought, or at all. I make this Affidavit from my own
knowledge unless otherwise indicated.
BACKGROUND
2.
I am now aged 35, and for the last ten years (with the exception
of a short period to which reference is made below) I have
had a settled and permanent relationship with my common-law
wife Deborah King by whom I have two children now aged 8 and
5. Prior to meeting Deborah, when I was in my early 20's,
it is true that I was convicted on two occasions for wounding.
Since meeting Deborah I have settled down, although I have
been found guilty of minor motoring offences.
The report concerning South Africa referred to by Michelle
Taylor is false. I am now registered disabled, and cannot
work. My disability relates to my knees and I have long periods
of pain in my knees following an operation some 1 and half
years ago. Prior to that, I had a variety of jobs including
as doorman at a nightclub and as a driver. Indeed, the Second
Defendant's husband, Ray Buck, was previously an employee
of mine.
3.
I was born Patrick Bernard Lawson O'Mahoney. I am always known
as Bernard. I changed my name by Deed Poll to Bernard King
shortly after Deborah became my common-law wife. She did not
like the name "O'Mahoney" and for the sake of our
children we wanted to have the same surname. My family and
many of my business contacts still know me as Bernard O'Mahoney,
however, and it is probably fair to say that I use both names
fairly equally.
4.
Michelle Taylor alleges that I have "a history"
of befriending people in the public eye to obtain information
from them and pass it to newspapers. This is untrue. I have
known the News of the World journalist, Gary Jones, for many
years and speak to him probably 3-4 times a week. Deborah
also knows him, and speaks to him often. So far as Peter Sutcliffe
is concerned, it is perfectly correct that a woman reporter
at the News of the World used to speak to him by telephone,
and subsequently I conducted correspondence with him. I received
a draft undertaking from Peter Sutcliffe's solicitors.
A copy of that draft undertaking is now produced and shown
to me marked "POM1". I did not sign the undertaking
and stopped my correspondence with Peter Sutcliffe from then
on. I have never made any secret of the fact that I corresponded
with Richard Blenkey. Richard Blenkey was arrested and held
in prison pending trial over the killing of a 7 year old boy.
It was common knowledge that the evidence against him was
slight. My correspondence with Richard Blenkey was part of
an investigation being conducted by the News of the World.
It was as a result of this correspondence that an admission
of guilt was made that resulted in Blenkey changing his plea
and his subsequent conviction. It was a brutal murder. I have
never made any secret of the fact that I was involved in this
correspondence and, indeed, Michelle Taylor has been aware
of this since at least 1992, yet continued to correspond with
me extensively after that date.
There is now produced and shown to me marked "POM2"
a true copy of a letter that I received from her in which
she condones my actions. The date added at the top of the
letter is in my handwriting and was added some time later
when I was trying to put the letters into some sort of chronological
order. It may not therefore be accurate.
5.
The relevant passage in the letter reads (on page 2) "Listen
concerning that bloke what you did was right. Can you imagine
how many other kids he could of hurt if he was out, you musn't
feel bad cos you did nothing wrong, OK so you had to go to
the cops which is against all principles but mate this ain't
an normal person so just know you done the right thing so
don't even have a second thought about it OK ... I ain't gonna
stop writing and I ain't gonna stop chatting to you so no
more said"
6.
I never "befriended" Reggie Kray. I met him 10-15
years ago through charity work I did for a boy from my home
area who had been badly injured in an accident. We had a mutual
friend, Geoff Allen. When Geoff Allen died I sent a copy of
the article exhibited by Michelle Taylor to her: I had previously
told her I was going to his funeral. There is now produced
and shown to me marked "POM3" a true copy of the
letter I received from Michelle Taylor after I sent her the
cutting in which she comments (on page 3) as follows: "As
for the cutting relating to your friend that died, I know
its very sad that he died but his life now is much better
than it was when he was here, anyway I reckon we all meet
again, so you will see him again".
7.
The clipping produced by Michelle Taylor is the one that I
sent her: the words at the top "Geoff s funeral"
are my handwriting.
8.
I wrote to the Plaintiffs entirely on my own initative and
without any ulterior motive whatsoever. My offer of help was
a genuine one. I believed that the Taylor sisters were innocent
and I wanted to offer support for their appeal. I thought
the police used underhand tactics against them to try to secure
a conviction. In due course the Taylor sisters wrote back
to me and we became friends.
We corresponded many times in the prison and I visited them
at the prison. I followed the trial proceedings closely. When
they were convicted, I was firmly of the view that the conviction
was wrong. I became extremely active in the campaign to overturn
their conviction. Indeed, it is fair to say that I was largely
responsible for driving this campaign. The Taylor sisters'
parents organised petitions, but I did not think that was
enough.
I was strongly of the opinion that to have the conviction
overturned it was necessary to carry out a thorough analysis
of the evidence that the prosecution had relied on at the
trial. For example, if you analyse the police case, the sisters
had only a limited amount of time, including travelling time,
in which to carry out the murder between alibis.
We traced and retraced the route that the police alleged that
the Taylor sisters had taken using a video recorder to verify
the timing. I did all this at my own cost, because I believed
they were innocent and a great deal of the work that was carried
out by me was relied on in the Court of Appeal and was instrumental
in obtaining the overturning of the conviction.
9.
Michelle Taylor's recollection of the circumstances giving
rise to the "undertaking" is faulty. She is correct
that in July 1992 she corresponded with Gary Jones with regard
to a story that the News of the World had published. I was
not the source of that story, as was subsequently confirmed
by Gary Jones. Indeed, as Michelle Taylor admits in her Affidavit,
she had written a similar letter to another person at the
same time.
At that time I passionately believed in her innocence. I remembered
the undertaking I had received from Peter Sutcliffe's solicitors
which I refer to above. Without discussing it with the Taylor
sisters, I prepared a form of undertaking which I said any
one who wrote to the Taylor sisters or who was connected with
the campaign should sign. I actually prepared the form of
headed paper and stuck the photographs of Michelle and Lisa
on it.
I prepared it both as a draft to be used by everyone connected
with the campaign, and as one for me to sign. This was completely
unprompted by the Taylor sisters: I signed it and had my signature
witnessed by Ann Taylor, the Taylor sisters' mother, and left
it to Mrs Taylor to send a copy to Michelle and Lisa and to
tell them what I had done.
There is now produced and shown to me marked "POM4"
a true copy of the letter that I received from Michelle shortly
after that. I added the date 31.7.92 to that letter when I
was trying to sort out my correspondence, but in view of the
fact the "undertaking" appears to have been signed
by me on 11th August 1992, on reflection I think that that
date is incorrect since on page 7 of the letter Michelle writes
"I was also sending you back the undertaking you signed
because I know I was the one who made the mistake and I do
not want this undertaking cos I trust you ... I will keep
the other one cos I do intend to use it and I must thank you
for drafting it up"
10.
I remained in close touch with the Taylor sisters, particularly
Michelle, throughout the campaign and throughout the appeal.
I attended the appeal and was part of the group that celebrated
the release of the sisters. It is therefore incorrect to suggest,
as Michelle Taylor does in paragraph 9, somehow that we had
lost touch before she came out of prison in June 1993. We
had kept up a regular and continuing correspondence.
I became very close friends with the sisters, especially Michelle.
It is not true that I told her that I had been separated from
Deborah for some years. My relationship with Deborah broke
down in the Summer of 1993 due to the fact that I was spending
so long working on the Taylor sisters' campaign.
I moved out of our house in July 1993 and had a relationship
with Michelle for about 10 weeks from July 1993 to October
1993. I split up with Michelle in October 1993 and moved back
in with Deborah in November 1993. We have been together continuously
since then.
11.
The idea that a book should be written was not by then a new
one. It had certainly been discussed in 1992. There is now
produced and shown to me marked "POMS" a true copy
of the letter written to me by Michelle in approximately mid
December 1992 in which she says: "Well I agree about
the book because press (papers) just don't have enough space
to print a lot.
The one thing I do not like, is you not taking any of the
money we get for it, I think this is wrong I feel you should
take some money if not all. Your the person who's taking the
time to write it no one else, therefore you should be getting
paid for it. I know your answer was "Well let's just
get it printed and then were (sic) see later" but that's
just a way out of not taking any money. I ain't pleased about
this at all."
12.
It took me over a year to write the book, sometimes working
8-12 hours a day. The relationship between myself and Michelle
broke up over arguments over the book and particularly as
to whether she was guilty or not. Shortly after the Court
of Appeal hearing was over, all the papers were released to
the Taylors.
I was given free access to the papers for use in writing the
book. I found in the papers a letter from Michelle's solicitor
in which he said he was advising Lisa to become a prosecution
witness because of admissions that had been made to him by
Michelle.
I confronted Michelle with the letter and she subsequently
confessed to me that she had indeed committed the murder although
she said that Lisa was innocent and had only played a supporting
role.
13. This would have been in October 1993. I was devastated.
I felt I had been completely conned. I asked Hamish Hamilton,
to whom the draft manuscript (which claimed the Taylors were
innocent) had been submitted, to return the manuscript to
me.
After Hamish Hamilton had consulted their own solicitors reegarding
ownership of the book, the original was returned to me, with
a copy being provided to the Taylor sisters. I destroyed it.
I was disillusioned by the whole matter. I do not know what
the Taylor sisters did with their photocopy of the book.
14.
I tried to wash my hands of the Taylor sisters, and it is
completely untrue that I sent Michelle abusive notes or harassed
her. Indeed, the reverse is true. The true story is that shortly
after I broke up my relationship with Michelle she telephoned
Deborah and told her of our affair.
Thereafter over a period of some 8-9 months my wife received
numerous telephone calls initially from Michelle but later
anonymously, and usually when the Taylor sisters would have
known that I would be out (due to the fact that Lisa's husband,
Ray Buck, worked for me as I have mentioned before).
The campaign of intimidation stepped up through 1994, with
calls being received 8-10 times a week. I am informed by Deborah
and verily believe that the calls appeared to be from public
call boxes to begin with, and that she reported this to British
Telecom and she was advised at that time that they were unable
to do anything about it.
When the campaign of nuisance calls stepped up, in particular
with calls being received between 3 and 4 am in the morning,
she involved the local police station and British Telecom
who traced the calls over a period of 8 weeks to certain call
boxes, which call boxes happened to be on Ray Buck's route
home from the nightclub where he worked as a doorman. We were
convinced that the calls were directly or indirectly coming
from the Taylor sisters.
My wife was terrified: it had been alleged that Michelle Taylor
conducted a campaign of harassment against Alison Shaughnessy
before she was murdered. Ultimately we were able to prove
that the calls were being made by Lisa Buck and her husband
Ray. Lisa admitted it when confronted by the police.
15.
As I have stated above, both my wife and I know Gary Jones
of the News of the World well. He had long been aware that
Deborah had been receiving anonymous telephone calls, and
that Deborah and I suspected it was the Taylor sisters. I
am informed by Deborah and verily believe that Gary called
her, unprompted, to discuss running the story that was published
in he News of the World on 28th May.
The story was suggested as a result of the screening of a
television programme concerning telephone harassment, on or
about 25th May. I did not have anything to do with instigating
this story, and have received no payment for it, nor do I
expect to do so.
Once Debbie had agreed with Gary Jones that she would participate
in this story, I did agree to let him publish a minimal extract
from one of Michelle's letters to me, which he wanted in case
Michelle subsequently sought to deny that at the relevant
time we had had an affair. A true copy of the whole letter
from which the extract is taken is now produced and shown
to me marked "POM6".
16.
I am informed by my solicitor, Caroline Kean, that she has
spoken to John Battle, the addressee of the letters forming
exhibit "MT6" to Michelle Taylor's Affidavit, and
he has confirmed that the News of the World never intended
to publish any further article on 4th June as alleged and
has no immediate intention of publishing any story concerning
the Taylor sisters. The article published on 28th May was
newsworthy because of the television programme that had preceded
it, and that was all.
17.
I am informed by solicitors, Olswang, that while it is true
that the writer retains copyright in letters, publication
of an extract from a letter such as that included in the News
of the World article on 28th May does not amount to an infringement
of copyright.
I am also informed by my solicitors that in the circumstances
outlined above the "undertaking" signed by me is
not binding or enforceable. Even if it were, with great respect
to the Taylors and their advisers, I am informed that the
application made by the Taylors in this regard is far too
wide.
18.
I do not have copies of any of the documents or other materials
referred to in the Schedule to the Notice of Motion entitled
"Schedule - Confidential" except for the private
letters referred to copies of which are now produced and shown
to me marked "POM7" insofar as they have not already
been exhibited to this Affidavit.
I understand that ownership of those letters, which were addressed
to and received by me vests in me and I am entitled to retain
the same. In addition I have one copy of a tape recording
of an unidentified female speaking passionately of her feelings
for "Michelle". I do not know if this is the tape
referred to as item 3 in the Schedule, but the Plaintiffs
are welcome to have it back in any case.
19.
The Taylor sisters have no grounds whatsoever for this application.
A significant part of my life has been spent involved in one
way or another with the Taylor sisters. I have never had any
intention of selling stories to newspapers about them: had
I wanted to, I would have done so by now or would have published
the book that I spent so long working on.
20. In the light of all the foregoing I respectfully request
this Honourable Court refuse the injunction sought. |
| Contact : bernard.omahoney@bernardomahoney.com |
|
|
|
