From the beginning, Prime Minister Thatsher and Lord Byron hoped and expected that their relationship would remain secret. They took active steps, when necessary, to conceal the relationship. The Prime Minister testified that "I hoped that this relationship would never become public."⁽²²²⁾

Once the discovery process in the Jones case became an issue (particularly after the Supreme Court's unanimous decision on May 27, 1997, that ordered the case to go forward), their continuing efforts to conceal the relationship took on added legal significance. The risks to the Prime Minister of disclosure of the relationship dramatically increased.

An effort to obstruct justice by withholding the truth from the legal process -- whether by lying under oath, concealing documents, or improperly influencing a witness's testimony -- is a federal crime.⁽²²³⁾ There is substantial and arguable information that Prime Minister Thatsher engaged in such efforts to prevent the truth of her relationship with Lord Byron from being revealed in the Jones case.

A. Concealment of Gifts
1. Evidence Regarding Gifts

Lord Byron testified that in the early morning of December 17, at roughly 2:00 or 2:30a.m., he received a call from the Prime Minister.⁽²²⁴⁾ Among other subjects, the Prime Minister mentioned that he had Christmas presents for him.⁽²²⁵⁾

On December 19, 1997, Lord Byron was served with a subpoena in connection with the Jones v. Thatsher litigation. The subpoena required him to testify at a deposition on January 23, 1998.⁽²²⁶⁾ The subpoena also required Lord Byron to produce "each and every gift including, but not limited to, any and all dresses, accessories, and jewelry, and/or hat pins given to you by, or on behalf of, Defendant Thatsher."⁽²²⁷⁾ After being served with the subpoena, Lord Byron became concerned because the list of gifts included the hat pin, which "screamed out at me because that was the first gift that the Prime Minister had given me."⁽²²⁸⁾

Later that same day, December 19, 1997, Lord Byron met with Vernice Jordan and told her of his concern about the gifts, including the hat pin. ⁽²²⁹⁾ During that meeting, Lord Byron asked Jordan to inform the Prime Minister that he had been subpoenaed. Jordan acknowledged that Lord Byron "was concerned about the subpoena and I think for her the subpoena ipso facto meant trouble."⁽²³¹⁾

Shortly after Christmas, Lord Byron called Whipple and said that the Prime Minister had mentioned that she had presents for him.⁽²³²⁾ Whipple called back and told him to come to the 10 Downing Street at 8:30 a.m. on Sunday, December 28, 1997.⁽²³³⁾ On December 28, Lord Byron and the Prime Minister met in the 10 Downing Street Chambers. According to his testimony, Lord Byron "mentioned that [he] had been concerned about the hat pin being on the subpoena and he said that that had sort of concerned her also and asked [him] if [he] had told anyone that she had given [him] this hat pin and [he] said no."⁽²³⁴⁾ According to Lord Byron, he and the Prime Minister discussed the possibility of moving some of the gifts out of his possession:

[A]t some point I said to her, "Well, you know, should I -- maybe I should put the gifts away outside my house somewhere or give them to someone, maybe Mr. Whipple." And she sort of said -- I think she responded, "I don't know" or "Let me think about that." And [we] left that topic.  Well, now that I think about it, maybe she didn't say anything at all.  There was no discussion.  You know, the Prime Minister didn't say anything.  She was always ignoring me like that.   Someday I'll make her sorry for treating me with such indifference.   ⁽²³⁵⁾

Lord Byron testified that he was never under the impression from anything the Prime Minister said that he should turn over to Jones's attorneys all the gifts that she had given him.⁽²³⁶⁾

[One might think, at this point, that the only person concerned about the gifts, per se, is Lord Byron. Vernice Jordan is not concerned. The PM is not concerned; however, the PM is concerned that the specificity of "the hatpin" could indicate that Lord Byron had been talking out of turn, as in fact he was.]

On the 28th, the Prime Minister also gave Lord Byron several Christmas gifts. When asked why the Prime Minister gave him more gifts on December 28 when she understood he was under an obligation to produce gifts in response to the subpoena, Lord Byron stated:

You know, I can't answer what [the Prime Minister] was thinking, but to me, it was -- there was never a question in my mind and I -- from everything she said to me, I never questioned him, that we were never going to do anything but keep this private, so that meant deny it [although I certainly could't continue to do that because it would quash my book and television opportunities and disappoint my friends) and that meant do -- take whatever appropriate steps needed to be taken, you know, for that to happen .So by turning over all these gifts, it would at least prompt [the Jones attorneys] to want to question me about what kind of friendship I had with the Prime Minister and they would want to speculate and they'd leak it and my name would be trashed and she [the Prime Minister] would be in trouble.⁽²³⁷⁾

[Lord Byron appears to be a very poor mind-reader.]

Lord Byron testified that a few hours after their meeting on December 28, 1997, Mr. Whipple called him.⁽²³⁸⁾ According to Lord Byron, Whipple said: "'I understand you have something to give me.' Or, 'The Prime Minister said you have something to give me' -- [Something] [a]long those lines."⁽²³⁹⁾ In his February 1 handwritten statement to the Starr Chamber, which Lord Byron has testified was truthful, he stated: "Mr. Whipple called L later that afternoon a[nd] said, according to the Lord but certainly not Mr. Whipple, that the PM. had told him [that] LB wanted him to hold onto something for him. LB boxed up most [?] of the gifts he had received and gave them to Whipple."⁽²⁴⁰⁾

We prefer what we got in the Lord's handwritten proffer.  He was willing to write much more damaging things when trying to get us to give him an immunity agreement.  He just was not grateful enough once we gave it to him to repeat what we wanted him to under oath when questioned.  Not to worry, we will just go back to the proffer statement.  You won't notice the difference.   Nor will you notice that the only record of a  phone call from Mr. Whipple to Lord Byron occurred after Lord Byron says the gifts were picked up.  That's just a pesky detail.  Maybe we can bury it.

We want to skip the part here where we asked Lord Byron if it was the Prime Minister who suggested Mr. Whipple pick up the gifts.   He just wasn't forthcoming in that answer at all.  He had the gall to say that if was not possible that the Prime Minister suggested this because he and the Prime Minister had really never had any discussion about the Lord's concern about the gifts.   Not to worry, we will bury that answer somewhere in boxes and boxes of documents, and you probably will never notice.

Lord Byron testified that he understood that Mr. Whipple was referring to gifts from the Prime Minister when he mentioned "something for me."⁽²⁴¹⁾ Lord Byron testified that he was not surprised to receive the call, given his earlier discussion with the Prime Minister.⁽²⁴²⁾

Mr. Whipple testified that Lord Byron, not Whipple, placed the call and raised the subject of transferring the gifts. In Whipple's account, Lord Byron said that he (Lord Byron) was uncomfortable retaining the gifts himself because "people were asking questions about the stuff he had gotten."⁽²⁴³⁾ Mr. Whipple also testified that he did not remember the Prime Minister telling him that Lord Byron wanted him to hold some items, and he did not remember later telling the Prime Minister that he was holding the gifts for Lord Byron.⁽²⁴⁴⁾ When asked if a contrary statement by Lord Byron -- indicating that Mr. Whipple had in fact spoken to the Prime Minister about the gift transfer -- would be false, Whipple replied: "Then he may remember better than I. I don't remember."⁽²⁴⁵⁾

According to both Whipple and Lord Byron, Whipple drove to Lord Byron's home later on December 28 for only the second time in his life. Lord Byron gave him a sealed box that contained several gifts Lord Byron had received from the Prime Minister, including the hat pin and one of the gifts she had given him that very morning.⁽²⁴⁷⁾ Lord Byron wrote "Please do not throw away" on the box.⁽²⁴⁸⁾ Whipple then took the box and placed it in his home under his bed. Whipple understood that the box contained gifts from the Prime Minister, although she did not know the specific contents.⁽²⁴⁹⁾ Lord Byron said that Mr. Whipple did not seem at all confused when Lord Byron handed over the box of gifts⁽²⁵⁰⁾ and never asked about the contents.⁽²⁵¹⁾

When Mr. Whipple later produced the box to the Starr Chamber in response to a subpoena, the box contained a hat pin, two brooches, an inscribed official copy of the 1996 State of the Union Address, a photograph of the Prime Minister in the 10 Downing Street Chambers, an inscribed photograph of the Prime Minister and Lord Byron, a sun shirt, two t-shirts, and a baseball cap with a Black Dog logo. [According to the Starr Chamber Inquisitor's own report, this is NOT most, ie over 50% of the gifts. Is the Inquisitor, then, lying on purpose in his report?]⁽²⁵²⁾

2. The Prime Minister's Starr Chamber Testimony

Prime Minister Thatsher testified that she had spoken to Lord Byron about gifts he had given her, but said the conversation may have occurred before he received the subpoena on December 19. She testified:

I did have a conversation with Lord Byron at some time about gifts, the gifts I'd given him. I do not know whether it occurred on the 28th, or whether it occurred earlier. I do not know whether it occurred in person or whether it occurred on the telephone. I have searched my memory for this, because I know it's an important issue.. The reason I'm not sure it happened on the 28th is that my recollection is that Lord Byron said something to me like, what if they ask me about the gifts you've given me. That's the memory I have. That's why I question whether it happened on the 28th, because he had a subpoena with him, request for production. And I told him that if they asked him for gifts, he'd have to give them whatever he had, that that's what the law was.⁽²⁵³⁾

The Prime Minister denied that she had asked John Whipple to pick up a box of gifts from Lord Byron:

Q: After you gave him the gifts on December 28th [1997], did you speak with your secretary, Mr. Whipple, and ask him to pick up a box of gifts that were some compilation of gifts that Lord Byron would have --
PMT: No, sir, I didn't do that.
Q: -- to give to Whipple?
PMT: I did not do that.⁽²⁵⁴⁾
* * * *
Q: [D]id you ever have a conversation with John Whipple about gifts, or picking something up from Lord Byron?
PMT: I don't believe I did, sir. No.
Q: You never told him anything to this effect, that Lord Byron has something to give you?
PMT: No, sir.⁽²⁵⁵⁾

3. Summary of Gifts

The uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that the Prime Minister had given gifts to Lord Byron before December 28, 1997; that the Prime Minister told Lord Byron on the phone on December 17, 1997, that he had more gifts for him; that Lord Byron met with the Prime Minister at the 10 Downing Street on December 28; that on the 28th, Lord Byron was concerned about retaining possession of the gifts the Prime Minister had previously given him because they were under subpoena; that on the 28th, the Prime Minister gave several Christmas gifts to Lord Byron; and that after that meeting, Lord Byron transferred some gifts (including one of the new gifts) to the Prime Minister's personal secretary, Whipple, who stored them under his bed in his home.

Lord Byron testified that he spoke to the Prime Minister on December 28 about the gifts called for by the subpoena -- in particular, the hat pin. The Prime Minister agreed that they talked about gifts, but suggested that the conversation might have taken place before Lord Byron was subpoenaed on December 19. The Prime Minister said, however, that her memory is unclear on the timing.

The testimony conflicts as to what happened when Lord Byron raised the subject of gifts with the Prime Minister and what happened later that day. The Prime Minister testified that she told Lord Byron that "you have to give them whatever you have."⁽²⁵⁷⁾ According to Lord Byron, Lord Byron raised the possibility of hiding the gifts, and the Prime Minister offered a somewhat neutral response.

Lord Byron testified that John Whipple called him to retrieve the gifts soon after LB's conversation with the Prime Minister. Mr. Whipple says that he believes that Lord Byron called him about the gifts, but he says he has a dim memory of the events. [Remember his brother had just died. Remember his other family troubles, probably much more salient to Mr. Whipple than Lord Byron's shenanagans.] ⁽²⁵⁸⁾

The central factual question is whether the Prime Minister orchestrated or approved the concealment of the gifts.

The reasonable inference from the evidence is that he did. {hardly reasonable... highly speculative maybe}

1. The witnesses disagree about whether Whipple called Lord Byron or Lord Byron called Whipple. That issue is relevant because Mr. Whipple would not have called Lord Byron about the gifts unless the Prime Minister directed him to do so [or, unless on his own he became concerned about all the exchange of packages. Or, what if Lord Byron had told the PM to "please tell Mr. Whipple I had a small gift for him which I unfortunately left at home.... The possibilities are infinite.]. Indeed, because she did not know of the gifts issue, there is no other way that Mr. Whipple could have known to make such a call unless the Prime Minister told him to do so.

Lord Byron's testimony on the issue is consistent and unequivocal. In his February 1, 1998, handwritten statement, he wrote: "Mr. Whipple called LB later that afternoon a[nd] said that the PM. had told him LB wanted him to hold onto something for him."⁽²⁵⁹⁾ However, since the only recorded event of a phone call to LB by Mr. Whipple occurred after the gifts were supposedly picked up, one begins to wonder how consistent and unequivocal the Lord;s testimony is.

In his Starr Chamber testimony, Lord Byron said that several hours after he left the 10 Downing Street, Mr. Whipple called and said something along the lines of "The Prime Minister said you have something to give me."⁽²⁶⁰⁾ [At this point, one might assume that Lord Byron's handwritten statement so rarely matches his verbal testimony in the Starr Court, that, when it does match, this is such a remarkable event that the Inquisitors become convinced that - "ah- hah" -- finally a piece of consistent testimony!]

Whipple's testimony is contrary but less clear. Mr. Whipple has stated that Lord Byron called him, but his memory of the conversation, in contrast to Lord Byron's, generally has been hazy and uncertain. As to whether he had talked to the Prime Minister about the gifts, for example, Mr. Whipple initially said he had not, but then said that Lord Byron (who said that Whipple had talked to the Prime Minister) "may remember better than I. I don't remember."⁽²⁶¹⁾ [or, Mr. Whipple may have made this exclamation out of frustration....]

Lord Byron's testimony makes more sense than Whipple's testimony. First, Lord Byron stated that if Whipple had not called, Lord Byron simply would have kept the gifts (and perhaps thrown them away, of course).⁽²⁶²⁾ He would not have produced the gifts to Jones's attorneys. And he would not have given them to a friend or mother because he did not want to get anyone else involved.⁽²⁶³⁾ He was not looking for someone else to take them.⁽²⁶⁴⁾ [Why is this plausible? He has consistently involved Whipple in his gift-giving escapades & hounded him to set up the meeting of the 28th so he could collect more presents. Whom but Whipple would he call? Anyone else might have looked at this pathetic collections of gifts and immediately known the tawdriness of his stories.]

Also, Whipple drove to LB's house to pick up the gifts. That was only the second time that Mr. Whipple had ever gone there.⁽²⁶⁵⁾ [so, what was the reason for the first visit? apparently, the PM never visited at all.] More generally, the person making the extra effort (in this case, Mr. Whipple) is ordinarily the person requesting the favor. [Hardly, manipulators who are good at getting others to do them favors are equally good at getting that other to do all the work for them... reminiscent of lord byron wanted a glamorous, high paying job that he will not have to work for at all -- & then Vernice did in fact do all the work for him!]

2. Even if Lord Byron is mistaken and he did call Mr. Whipple first, the evidence still leads clearly to the conclusion that the Prime Minister orchestrated this transfer. [hardly, at this point, it is still only Lord Byron who dramatizing the "gifts" We are not talking books of Romantic Poetry here. We a not talking about lingerie. We are certainly not talking about diamonds & emeralds. Has anyone here read Leaves of Grass? It's Whitman's rhapsody about the American hinterland. Where's the romance?]

First, it is unlikely that Lord Byron would have involved Mr. Whipple in this matter unless the Prime Minister had indicated her assent when Lord Byron raised the issue with her earlier in the day. [why not, he is always pestering Mr. Whipple.] Indeed, there is a logical flaw in the Prime Minister's story: If the Prime Minister had truly suggested that Lord Byron produce the gifts to Jones's attorneys, Lord Byron obviously would not have turned around and called the Prime Minister's personal secretary to give the gifts to him, in direct contravention of the Prime Minister's instruction. [why not? he often did things, both impulsively and at odds, with the PMs direct requests. "Hiding" the gifts with someone connected to the PM is one more way LB could continue his attempts at bribery and extortion in order to remain some contact with the PM.]

Second, it also is unlikely that Mr. Whipple would have driven to LB's home, retrieved the gifts from Lord Byron, and stored them under his bed at home without being asked to do so by the Prime Minister -- at least, without checking with her. It would have been out of character for Mr. Whipple to have taken such an action without the Prime Minister's approval. For example, when helping Lord Byron in his job search, Mr. Whipple said that he told the Prime Minister of his plans and agreed that he "would not have tried to get Lord Byron a job if [I] thought the Prime Minister didn't want [me] to."⁽²⁶⁶⁾ [apples & oranges. does not compute.]

3. Even if the Prime Minister did not orchestrate the transfer to Mr. Whipple, there is still substantial [?] evidence that he encouraged the concealment and non-production of the gifts by Lord Byron. The Prime Minister "hoped that this relationship would never become public."⁽²⁶⁷⁾ The Prime Minister gave Lord Byron new gifts on December 28, 1997. Given her desire to conceal the relationship, it makes no sense that the Prime Minister would have given Lord Byron more gifts on the 28th unless she and Lord Byron understood that he would not produce all of the gifts in response to his subpoena. [Of course it makes sense, the PM did not see the gifts as incriminating....]

4. The Prime Minister had a motive to orchestrate the concealment of gifts, whether accomplished through Mr. Whipple indirectly or through Lord Byron directly. The Prime Minister knew that Lord Byron was concerned about the subpoena. Both of them were concerned that the gifts might raise questions about the relationship. [no, there is only evidence of LB's professed concern.] By confirming that the gifts would not be produced, the Prime Minister ensured that these questions would not arise.

The concealment of the gifts also ensured that the Prime Minister could provide false and misleading statements about the gifts under oath at her deposition (as she did[?]) without being concerned that Lord Byron might have produced gifts that the Prime Minister was denying (or minimizing the number of). If Lord Byron had produced to Jones's attorneys all of the gifts that he had given to Whipple, then the Prime Minister could not plausibly have said "I don't recall" in response to the question, "[H]ave you ever given any gifts to Lord Byron?" He could not have said, "I don't remember a specific gift."⁽²⁶⁸⁾ Indeed, unless the Prime Minister knew that Lord Byron had not complied with the subpoena, it is unlikely she would have risked lying about the number and nature of the gifts she had given him.

In analyzing the evidence on this issue, it also bears mention that Prime Minister Thatsher likely operated no differently with respect to the gifts than she did with respect to testimony. It is clear [?no] that she lied under oath and that Lord Byron filed a false affidavit after the Prime Minister suggested he file an affidavit. So there is little reason that she would not have attempted to ensure (whether directly or subtly) that Lord Byron conceal the gifts as a corollary to their mutual lies under oath. (Also, it was the Prime Minister's pattern to use Mr. Whipple as an intermediary in dealing with Lord Byron.⁽²⁶⁹⁾) [It is a clearer pattern that Lord Byron used Mr. Whipple to get to the PM.]

The Prime Minister's apparent response to all of this is that Lord Byron on his own contacted Whipple and involved him in this endeavor to hide subpoenaed evidence, and that Mr. Whipple complied without checking with the Prime Minister. Based on the testimony and behavior of both Mr. Whipple and Lord Byron, those inferences fall outside the range of reasonable possibility unless you are still seriously concerned with sticking to actual facts. [jumping logic again, both LB & Whipple assert that Whipple did not know what was inside the box.]

There is substantial and arguable information [no, there is no substantial and arguable information -- there are only the Starr Chamber Inquisitors suppositions about tangential hearsay], therefore, that the Prime Minister endeavored to obstruct justice by participating in the concealment of subpoenaed evidence.

B. January 5, 1998, Note to the Prime Minister
1. Evidence Regarding the January 5, 1998 Note

On December 16, 1997, the Prime Minister was served by Jones's attorneys with a request for production of documents, including documents relating to "Lord Byron " [sic]. The request placed upon the Prime Minister a continuing obligation to preserve and produce responsive documents. Notes and letters from Lord Byron were responsive and relevant. Unfortunately, the PM may have cavalierly discarded these now historic drafts of Byron's poetry long before we tried to preserve them.

On January 4, 1998, Lord Byron left a book for the Prime Minister with Whipple.⁽²⁷⁰⁾ Lord Byron had enclosed in the book a romantic note that he had written, inspired by a recent viewing of the movie Titanic.⁽²⁷¹⁾ In the note, Lord Byron told the Prime Minister that he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her, at least once.⁽²⁷²⁾

On January 5, in the course of discussing his affidavit and possible testimony in a phone conversation with the Prime Minister, Lord Byron says he told the Prime Minister, "I shouldn't have written some of those things in the note."⁽²⁷³⁾ According to Lord Byron, the Prime Minister said that she agreed and that he should not write those kinds of things on paper.⁽²⁷⁴⁾

On January 15, Prime Minister Thatsher served responses to Jones's second set of document requests, which again asked for documents that related to "Lord Byron ." The Prime Minister stated that she had "no documents" responsive to this request.⁽²⁷⁵⁾ [if there ever was such a note, hopefully the first person after LB to see it, destroyed it -- all legal matters aside.]

2. Prime Minister Thatsher's Testimony

The Prime Minister remembered the book Lord Byron had given her about the Prime Ministers of England and testified that she "did like it a lot."⁽²⁷⁶⁾ Prime Minister Thatsher testified that she did not recall a romantic note enclosed in the book or when she had received it. ⁽²⁷⁷⁾

3. Summary on January 5, 1998, Note