In view of recent developments I wrote to Prof Lewis to invite him to account for the anomalies in his evidence, which have since proved to be false. I felt I should give him a fair opportunity to explain why he should have done this. Below is the e-mail I sent to Professor Lewis:
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008
From: Michael John Smith
To: Meirion Francis Lewis, email@example.com
Cc: Richard Jefferies
Subject: Your evidence on R v Michael John Smith in 1993
Dear Professor Lewis,
I have recently come into possession of new evidence, which I am now aware was common knowledge back in the 1980s, and which I believe poses questions about the testimony you gave at my trial in 1993
I can set out this evidence as a number of simple points:
(1) the “restricted” document on which you gave evidence, Exhibit pages 51-59 or No. 79481/PBH/BB/SO8, was known to be linked to an early version of the ALARM missile seeker in January 1982 - when the document was issued - but none of the 16 people listed on its distribution list were interviewed about it or asked to be witnesses at my trial. Instead, in 1995, the Security Commission made a contradictory statement in their report (based on what the MoD told them) that ‘… at the time the document was created it was not specifically linked to a particular weapons system.’ (Annex A.5)
(2) On 27 March 1984 (more than 8 years before my arrest) the “restricted” document became obsolete, and so could not have been used on any production grade ALARM missiles, and certainly none used in the Gulf War of 1991, as indicated by you in your testimony.
(3) The document that superseded the “restricted” document was another MSDS specification with the reference 1011-00435 issue 1. This later document was “unclassified”, indicating that the information had been effectively declassified.
(4) You said you could identify a link to ALARM from information in the “restricted” document, but you corroborated your claim by quoting a Technical Director at Marconi, who you have named as Dr Reginald Humphryes. I have spoken with Dr Humphryes on the telephone, and he said that he could not remember you making contact with him at the time of my trial, and that in any case he was never responsible for the ALARM missile, and would have had to have asked somebody in another division of Marconi to obtain such information. Effectively we cannot identify who confirmed that connection with ALARM.
I and my Defence lawyers were completely unaware that the document on which you gave evidence was in fact obsolete, or that the man you said had confirmed a link to ALARM had no responsibility for the missile. I believe this information would have significantly affected my Defence if I had known the truth.
Your evidence at my trial was that the document was used on ALARM, and that it was so sensitive because it would have enabled ALARM to be jammed. Do you still maintain that this is your position?
I am not attempting to cause any trouble for you in presenting the above facts, I am only seeking the truth so that I can resolve this matter once and for all, and because I spent more than 10 years in prison as a result of the jury’s verdict.
If you think I am being unfair, or that I have got something wrong in the above, then please correct me. I am only asking you for an explanation that makes sense of the new evidence in my possession.
Michael John Smith
I was perplexed to receive no reply and was worried that he might be ill or about to go the same way as Dr David Kelly, and so I made three phone calls to his home and left messages on his telephone answering machine. By Saturday afternoon I was getting concerned that my messages had caused him some trauma and so I managed to track down the telephone number of a neighbour across the road from Professor Lewis - I explained that I was concerned that he may be absent or unwell and she agreed to drop a note through his door for me. My interventions eventually led to Professor Lewis sending me a reply, which I print below.
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008
From: Meirion Francis Lewis, firstname.lastname@example.org
To: Michael John Smith
Subject: Re: Your evidence on R v Michael John Smith in 1993
I am the wrong person to contact.
M F LEWIS
If Lewis is the wrong person to contact about the false evidence he gave on oath at my trial then who is the right person(s) to contact? I will now list everyone who gave evidence at my trial to aid Mr Lewis (see witness list). Perhaps he cannot remember the names of the people who persuaded him to give false evidence. It may help Lewis to refresh his memory by checking the names on that list.
However, Lewis’s reply did come as a disappointment to me because I naively thought that he would be able to offer me an explanation for his behaviour, such as that he was placed under some form of pressure to give that evidence, which I have now learnt is a very common practice by prosecuting authorities in this country, because no one in their right senses voluntarily goes to the Old Bailey to give false evidence against another man without good reason.
Lewis’s evidence was on oath and I believe he knew his evidence to be false at the time, and that he thereby perjured himself in order to secure my conviction. Lewis now appears to believe that by refusing to speak to me he will in some way shield himself from any comeback, now that his crimes are exposed. Lewis possibly feels that he has the protection of the corrupt police and security men who put him up to giving false evidence against me. The bad news for him is that corrupt police and intelligence officers will never ever under any circumstances support Lewis in any way now that he has been exposed.
As far as the authorities are concerned Lewis should be grateful that whatever was previously known about him and/or his activities has remained an official secret, and that the authorities have kept to their deal - “go to court and give that evidence and we will not proceed with what we know about you” - they will also consider that his treachery has been amply rewarded with the bestowal of an unwarranted professorship shortly before his retirement, and the unearned award of a high ranking honour, namely a CBE. As far as I can see both the professorship and the CBE are the proceeds of crime and should be removed. If Lewis wishes to sue me then I would be overjoyed to have this matter examined before a judge.
See All Professor Lewis’s evidence at the Cryptome website.
See also the judge’s take on Lewis's evidence in his Summing-Up at my trial. So Lewis's lies not only deceived the jury they deceived the judge, and so he wrongly urged the jury to convict me.
It now turns out that all the above evidence by Lewis about ALARM was nonsense and solely designed to mislead the jury, and then it was the judge’s turn to mislead the jury when he repeated Lewis’s points in his Summing Up. Despite it being nonsense Lewis’s evidence had the desired effect of convincing the jury to convict me.