2 June 2006



Mike Smith writes:

This document is the "case Summary", which was the Prosecution's assessment of the case, and the main evidence and arguments on which they presented their case in court. The document may appear impressive, but much of the evidence was very weak.

http://cryptome.org/smith-summary.doc (Regina v. Michael John Smith, marked "SECRET")

For example:

(1) The phone call was a trick and the police manipulated much of what happened during their interviews in order to make it seem like there was a previous history of such activities. No evidence was produced to support that argument.

(2) All the arguments about "tradecraft", and KGB methods, could easily have been evidence of more tricks by MI5, because they knew all about these things, and were in a good position to perform an entrapment operation. The mysterious Harry Williams and the source of the money were never traced.

(3) The jury gave the verdict "not guilty" to all the charges related to the handwritten notes (marked JS/16 to JS/20), and so all the experts and evidence produced by the prosecution failed to impress the jury.

(4) The Case Summary refers to the one "restricted" classified document found in the car. At no time did the prosecution identify what project this document was used on, or its significance, until well into the trial when a MoD expert claimed it came from Britain's ALARM missile project. This point has never been confirmed by the MoD.

(5) A major part of the prosecution case relied on the evidence about Oporto and the tourist map that had been found. This map was only a tourist map, and the markings on it had no connection with any espionage activity, but it suited the Prosecution to claim it "might or might not be evidence of KGB tradecraft". There is no mention in the Case Summary of the US citizen Mr E, who would be brought into the case late, and who played a major part in convincing the jury that the issues concerning Portugal were indicative of the involvement of the KGB.

There are other errors and distortions in the Case Summary, which will be explained on the blog http://www.parellic.blogspot.com