◆ SpookStack

7f QUESTIONS ABOUT SPYING PUT ¥al ~4 mAy Pusat, Se QUEENS BENCH DIVISION PLAINTIFF IN LIBEL ACTION sates STRAUSS v. ASSOCIATED "al NEWSPAPERS LTD. - it id Before Mn. Justict Ormenon and a Jari The hearing was continued of this at 3 in which Mr. Karl Strauss, of Rodel Avenue, W.8, claimed damages for sibel against Associated Newspapers Lid. ig i spect of the. principal’ tiem upon front page of the Darly Mail for Jundabdey 1951. under the headlines “ Paris holga Strauss” and “Third man link with mis iplomars pak | "Mr. Richard O'Sullivan, Q.C., and bea Roland Brown appeared for che ia Anse Mr. Cyril Salmon, QC. and Mc. Hel Milmo for the defeadanis, md bi -cxamination of;ebé, Cyril Salmon said that yesfeeg ‘id that the’ notes 2 paint. Mi a lay 4 faintifl had saic found by the police hidden in a Phos raph in his flat were not notes of microh instructions received from Prague, but were ' noics received from Mr. Weishkopf, nm he had said was employed by the BAlish. Counsel referred to the siatement mde by ‘ihe witness to the police. that the ‘notes had been made from instructions redbiye on microfilm, and the witness replied" I did not say That sialement was dic tated by the inspector and given to Fic | Fead and sign. I was promised thatist Signed it nothing more would happen topttigyts ALLEGATION CALLED * SHOCKING! ‘That is a shocking allegation to mak against the police. Are you sugeesting that they were asking you to sign something that , Was not truc ?=-They did not undersiand. ) Mr. Weishkopf had told me ta put the nates in @ safe place because many Czecho- slovakian émigrés came (omy flat. Which is a lie: the evidence which you gave on oath before the committee whi fabot® determine wirether you should be di of British nationality, that the not Ewe microfilm were hidden behind 1 AliiRErsph, or the evidence which you gaye fore my Lord and the jury that they were ORL al he evidence which I gave yesteyyay 1 and to-day is the truth. . 7 AP what you told the committee wasy} yet i wouldn't say that; the notes word | cai up. ois oniy fair 10 give you one more chaneey Police are poing to give evidence arth whai was found behind the photograph. "Ag till telling the jury that the notes be! \grotograph were not notes of the mporad | nbsanstructions reccived fram Prague. Zt | They were not notes concerning the mRiw film from Prague. Do vou: agree that there were five piccey Of paner behind the photograph — Yes. + | Give other pieces of paper ?—Yes. SmReplying to further questions, the withtss | WeRhat the notes found by the police dictated by Mr. Weishkapf in his RMBilss’s) Nat. Mr. Weishkopf was ays mtived in London. He agsecd that he: the police that he gave Mz. Zeman detatlt of ppblic and private meetings held by right- ing C2cchoslovakians and by which didi I statements were made, but Fi hal dates and times were invented. Jost fF de names were invented 3 he copied them O01 Ne expapers * [rouse auns cee _ {jf H British, Orr peat | easgtGp RMN etn si Bees ras 0 aatiaube, o 436) sansi | seenat'ifvourwersinvestilis aBbiNioetbou Must have been inventing “stoflee"of ene Communist acitvities hy real people 2—I in | vented somes they were aboee people who were not al all in some danger. Yesicrday I asked you if you could think of a more disgusting traffic than that and you said that you could; you say that you ‘ook “money from Prague knowing ibs these people had relatives in Cecchot slovakia 2—Yes, Pay And you are ask you money becau sre Press have said eet you are a spy ?— a St for the stat ment of the Daily Mail that it was not ad that 1 was connected with the miss diplomats, a Re-examined, the witness said that ag ig 8 British jury to give the police had visited his flat they had 8: TRA; they came because he was suspect el being in possession of dynamite anti riliitacy scerets, The five pieces of pai found ‘behind the photograph were pice of paper beating scrawls. After the Polics left he had a tlephone eal from therm cart (hat the investigation was closed and that there was nothing wrong. had Rapnencd until six Nothing more months later, when he recewed the letver about making false staicmenis. No charge had ever been made against him by the police in this country and after iis certificate of naturalization had ‘been wi drawn Teceived a certificate of registration under the Aliens Restriction Act. He had not betrayed r. Clementis ; he was connected with him, but did not betray him, ° Had il ever been allered before yesterday Ki you betrayed Clementis ?— Yes: ged that through my case the exceuti about because it is it was disclosed that es fi him, 4 ° JUDGE'S QUESTION ro] toMn. Justice Oxmenop.—If Mr. Clement s mentioned only in that part of the nrée es tings which was heard in camera, bow it get into the newspapers 7—It was nol the English Press. I! was a message fre echoslovakia received in Switacrland4 y Swiss Press published le underground and. the 1 England. In itl was justified “me t In answer to further questions from’ counsel, the wilness said that it was not fj} Feport about his case. bu 9 statement tha pee) touch with Clemens le has gover been given any information about + Clementis. When Clementis was exccute he was manager of a bank: he was diresd | in decline in Prague, but had been forces | secretary before then, after Masaryk Macaryi hes fice wien was forcign secretary. ‘ad had nothi > wi ieee of tae ; ing to di with cisikont was @ real person and so far is he knew he was di | MATRA? BAT, che So EMIDRNGR, BU BELEETIV ES Ma. Su{ston said that he did ot ro exe it 1 Bh oren the case and WdUTd TAR 'h ce. tae Detective serzeant William John Jeficote, lew Scotland Yard, gave evidence of ing 10 the defendant's Mat in 1950 to exe- euteascarch warrant under the Official Secrets rime Mk. MICMO said that the plainiift } | Bibrning said that he read the statement “frown of inducement was made to {te i 1 te OL Asked about the plain’ re- action when ihe pieces of paper were red in the photograph frame, the waked E he seemed guite calm, The witness my the wrote down a stalement mador rauss and saw him sign his name the caution, And signed it because ‘the police said BBthing further would happen. The wi Mblicd hac he was not told that. a2 we e statement was made valuntarily in ¢ : oe plaintiff in the course id: “1 frankly conge (in working for the authorities in Pr: . conduct had been dishonourahle, T na coward in nal having the courace te Mid the matter by refusing ¢o do any 1a teork, have no relatives in-Czechastovs Bot F feared the unpleasant develoss fhich would have followed both for me as Py friends among the exiles had my activi en known to the British Government butte Feaple who controlled me from Prague. tom or CASE FOR DEFENDANTS, BEM. Saison suid that the evidenced ic defendanis was. completed. fe Wdressing the jury he wished (o say thai RS on the-pica of fait comment woul@te Bist the passage in the article ‘he aha Burgess and Maclean meant ehat the plail Seas the sort of man who might be the 4 i Ath them, and he would invite the jurysl y that in the circumstances as proved Hiat BR Somments in the pubis Interest 708 he sort of man that the plaintiff was, =P® ia, TH@ other point, counsel continued, Wal, posing the article meant that the pla ge the hnk. the only defamatory significane’ Bpeld be that he would necessarily oc pro' Iv be a paid spy of some country behind ie iron curtain. Counsel referred ta section Seof the Defamation Act, 1952, and said tthe fact thar the plainti( was not the jak, because it tea pens heen Speeested in (Che was the actual man who Beales 4 mug (OVER) Seep cpm = Bdackean.to.gct_ behind SoS ? o.