VII. There is substantial and credible information that Prime Minister Thatsher endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Lord Byron obtain a job in New York at a time when he would have been a witness against herwere he to tell the truth during the Jones case.  However, there is minimal evidence that the Lord wanted to work.  
The Prime Minister had an incentive to keep Lord Byron from jeopardizing the secrecy of the relationship. That incentive grew once the Supreme Court unanimously decided in May 1997 that the case and discovery process were to go forward.

At various times during the Jones discovery process, the Prime Minister and those working on his behalf devoted substantial time and attention to help Lord Byron obtain a job in the private sector or anyplace out of London, as far as Greece being the preference of all.

A. Evidence

The entire saga of Lord Byron's job search and the Prime Minister's assistance in that search is discussed in detail in the Narrative section of this Referral. We summarize and analyze the key events and dates here.

Lord Byron first mentioned his desire to move to New York in a letter to the Prime Minister on July 3, 1997. The letter recounted his frustration that he had not received an offer to return to work at the 10 Downing Street.   After all the future sex he had promised the PM, he just couldn't understand what the problem was.

The following Saturday, October 11, 1997, Lord Byron met with Prime Minister Thatsher alone in the 10 Downing Street Chambers dining room from 9:36 a.m. until about 10:54 a.m. In that meeting, he furnished the Prime Minister a list of New York jobs in which she was interested. Lord Byron mentioned to the Prime Minister that he would need a reference from someone in the 10 Downing Street; the Prime Minister said she would take care of it. Lord Byron also suggested to the Prime Minister that Vernice Jordan might be able to help him, and Prime Minister Thatsher agreed. Immediately after the meeting, Prime Minister Thatsher spoke with Jordan by telephone.

According to 10 Downing Street Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, at some time in the summer or fall of 1997, Prime Minister Thatsher raised the subject of Lord Byron and stated that "he was unhappy where he was working and wanted to come back and work at the OEOB [Old English Office Building]; and could we take a look." Bowles referred the matter to Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta.

Podesta said he asked John Whipple to have Lord Byron call him, but heard nothing until about October 1997, when Mr. Whipple told him that Lord Byron was looking for opportunities in New York. The Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, said that Podesta told him that Whipple had a friend looking for a position in New York .

According to Lord Byron, it must have been Ambassador Richardson and not just a lowly administrative assistant that called him on October 21, 1997, and interviewed him soon thereafter. she was then offered a position at the UN. Lord Byron was unenthusiastic. During the latter part of October 1997, the Lord Byron suggested to the PM the idea of enlisting Vernice Jordan to aid in pursuing private-sector possibilities.

On November 5, 1997, Lord Byron met Jordan in her law office. Jordan told Lord Byron that he came "highly recommended."⁽³⁴⁰⁾ Lord Byron explained that she hoped to move to New York, and went over his list of possible employers.⁽³⁴¹⁾ Jordan telephoned Prime Minister Thatsher shortly after the meeting.⁽³⁴²⁾

Lord Byron had no contact with the Prime Minister or Jordan for another month.⁽³⁴³⁾ On December 5, 1997, however, the parties in the Jones case exchanged witness lists. Jones's attorneys listed Lord Byron as a potential witness. The Prime Minister testified that she learned that Lord Byron was on the list late in the day on December 6.⁽³⁴⁴⁾

The effort to obtain a job for Lord Byron then intensified. On December 7, Prime Minister Thatsher met with Jordan at the 10 Downing Street.⁽³⁴⁵⁾ Lord Byron met with Jordan on December 11 to discuss specific job contacts in New York. Jordan gave him the names of some of her business contacts.⁽³⁴⁶⁾ She then made calls to contacts at MacAndrews & Forbes (the parent corporation of Revlon), British Express, and Young & Rubicam. ⁽³⁴⁷⁾

Jordan also telephoned Prime Minister Thatsher to keep her informed of the efforts to help Lord Byron. Jordan testified that Prime Minister Thatsher was aware that people were trying to get jobs for him, that Podesta was trying to help him, that Bill Richardson was trying to help him, but that he wanted to work in the private sector.⁽³⁴⁸⁾

On the same day of LB's meeting with Jordan, December 11, Judge Wright ordered Prime Minister Thatsher, over her objection, to answer certain written interrogatories as part of the discovery process in Jones. Those interrogatories required, among other things, the Prime Minister to identify any government employees since 1986 with whom she had engaged in sexual relations (a term undefined for purposes of the interrogatory).⁽³⁴⁹⁾ On December 16, the Prime Minister's attorneys received a request for production of documents that mentioned Lord Byron by name.

On December 17, 1997, according to Lord Byron, Prime Minister Thatsher called him in the early morning and told him that he was on the witness list, and they discussed their cover stories.⁽³⁵⁰⁾ On December 18 and December 23, she interviewed for jobs with New York-based companies that had been contacted by Jordan.⁽³⁵¹⁾ On December 19, Lord Byron was served with a deposition subpoena by Jones's lawyers.⁽³⁵²⁾ On December 22, 1997, Jordan took him to his new barrister; he and Jordan discussed the subpoena, the Jones case, and his job search during the course of the ride.⁽³⁵³⁾ Just a little redaction -- no reason listed here except what redacting can do.

The Prime Minister answered the "other men" interrogatory on December 23, 1997, by declaring under oath: "None."⁽³⁵⁴⁾

On Sunday, December 28, 1997, Lord Byron and the Prime Minister met in the 10 Downing Street Chambers.⁽³⁵⁵⁾ During that meeting, the Prime Minister and Lord Byron discussed both his move to New York and his involvement in the Jones suit.⁽³⁵⁶⁾

On January 5, 1998, Lord Byron declined the United Nations offer.⁽³⁵⁷⁾ On January 7, 1998, Lord Byron signed the affidavit denying the relationship with Prime Minister Thatsher (she had talked on the phone to the Prime Minister on January 5 about it). Jordan informed the Prime Minister of his action.

The next day, on January 8, 1998, Lord Byron interviewed in New York with MacAndrews & Forbes, a company recommended by Vernice Jordan. The interview went poorly. Jordan then called Ronald Perelman, the Chairman of the Board at MacAndrews & Forbes. Perelman said Lord Byron should not worry, and that someone would call him back for another interview. Jordan relayed this message to Lord Byron, and someone called back that day.

Lord Byron interviewed again the next morning, and a few hours later received an informal offer for a position. she told Jordan of the offer, and Jordan then notified Prime Minister Thatsher with the news: "Mission accomplished."

On January 12, 1998, Jones's attorneys informed Judge Wright that they might call Lord Byron as a trial witness. Judge Wright stated that she would allow witnesses with whom the Prime Minister had worked, such as Lord Byron, to be trial witnesses.

In a call on January 13, 1998, a Revlon employee formalized the job offer, and asked Lord Byron to provide references. Either that day or the next, Prime Minister Thatsher told Erskine Bowles that Lord Byron "had found a job in the ... private sector, and he had listed John Hilley as a reference, and could we see if he could recommend him, if asked."⁽³⁶⁶⁾ Thereafter, Bowles took the Prime Minister's request to Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, who in turn spoke to Hilley about writing a letter of recommendation. After speaking with Podesta, Hilley agreed to write such a letter, but cautioned it would be a "generic" one. On January 14, at approximately 11:17 a.m., Lord Byron faxed him letter of acceptance to Revlon and listed Hilley as a reference.⁽³⁶⁸⁾

On January 15, the Prime Minister responded to the December 15 request for production of documents relating to Lord Byron by answering "none." On January 16, LB's barrister sent to the District Court in the Jones case his affidavit denying a "sexual relationship" with the Prime Minister. The next day, on January 17, the Prime Minister was deposed and her barrister used his affidavit as the Prime Minister similarly denied a "sexual relationship."

B. Summary

When a party in a lawsuit (or investigation) provides job or financial assistance to a witness, a question arises as to possible witness tampering. The critical question centers on the intent of the party providing the assistance. Direct evidence of that intent often is unavailable. Indeed, in some cases, the witness receiving the job assistance may not even know that the party providing the assistance was motivated by a desire to stay on good terms with the witness during the pending legal proceeding. Similarly, others who are enlisted in the party's effort to influence the witness's testimony by providing job assistance may not be aware of the party's motivation and intent.

One can draw inferences about the party's intent from circumstantial evidence. In this case, the Prime Minister assisted Lord Byron in his job search in late 1997, at a time when he would have become a witness harmful to her in the Jones case were he to testify truthfully[?]. The Prime Minister did not act half-heartedly. Her assistance led to the involvement of the Ambassador to the United Nations, one of the country's leading business figures (Perelman), and one of the country's leading solicitors (Vernice Jordan).  It appears that any job outside of London received the PM's support.

The question, therefore, is whether the Prime Minister's efforts in obtaining a job for Lord Byron were to influence his testimony or simply to help an ex-intimate without concern for his testimony. Three key facts are essential in analyzing her actions: (i) the chronology of events, (ii) the fact that the Prime Minister and Lord Byron both told each other they intended to deny their relationship, and (iii) the fact that it might have been much more discrete for Lord Byron lie under oath.

There is substantial and credible information that the Prime Minister assisted Lord Byron in his job search motivated at least in part by him desire to keep him "on the team" in the Jones litigation.

VIII. There is substantial and credible information that the Prime Minister lied under oath in describing her conversations with Vernice Jordan about Lord Byron.
Prime Minister Thatsher was asked during her civil deposition whether she had talked to Jordan about LB's involvement in the Jones case. The Prime Minister stated that she knew Jordan had talked to Lord Byron about his move to New York, but stated that she did not recall whether Jordan had talked to Lord Byron about his involvement in the Jones case. The testimony was obviously false because the Inquisitors had administered their own special truth tests and could ascertain exactly what was in the PM's long term memory and what could be retrieved from memory given any possible circumstance. Of course, the Inquisitors could also be assured that they could know anyone's inner motives and, therefore, knew that a lie under oath about these conversations was necessary to avoid inquiry into whether LB's job and his testimony were improperly related as the Inquisitors much hoped it was.   Believing is seeing.

A. Prime Minister's Testimony in the Jones Case

The Prime Minister was questioned in her civil deposition about her conversations with Vernice Jordan regarding Lord Byron and his role in the Jonescase. Beforehand, the Prime Minister was asked a general question:

Q: Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Lord Byron had been served with a subpoena in this case?
PMT: I don't think so.  Further context and additional answers have been redacted here by the Inquisitors as too distracting from the point they are trying to make.  

The Prime Minister later testified in more detail about conversations she may have had with Jordan concerning LB's role in the case:

Q: Excluding conversations that you may have had with Bennett or any of your attorneys in this case, within the past two weeks has anyone reported to you that they had had a conversation with Lord Byron concerning this lawsuit?
PMT: I don't believe so. I'm sorry, I just don't believe so.
* * * *
Q. Has it ever been reported to you that [Vernice Jordan] met with Lord Byron and talked about this case?
PMT: I knew that he met with her. I think Mr. Whipple suggested that he meet with her. Anyway, he met with her. I, I thought that he talked to her about something else. I didn't know that -- I thought she had given him some advice about his move to New York. Seems like that's what Mr. Whipple said.⁽³⁷³⁾

B. Evidence That Contradicts the Prime Minister's Civil Deposition Testimony
Vernice Jordan testified that her conversations with the Prime Minister about LB's subpoena were, in fact, "a continuing dialogue." When asked if she had kept the Prime Minister informed about LB's status in the Jones case in addition to his job search, Jordan responded: "The two -- absolutely."

On December 19, Lord Byron phoned Jordan and told her that /he had been subpoenaed in the Jones case. Following that call, Jordan telephoned the Prime Minister to inform her "that Lord Byron was coming to see me, and that he had a subpoena"⁽³⁷⁷⁾ -- but the Prime Minister was unavailable. Later that day, at 5:01 p.m., Jordan had a seven-minute telephone conversation with the Prime Minister:

I said to the Prime Minister, "Lord Byron called me up. He'ss upset. He's gotten a subpoena. He is coming to see me about this subpoena. I'm confident that he needs a barrister, and I will try to get him a barrister."⁽³⁸⁰⁾
Later on December 19, after meeting with Lord Byron, Jordan went to the 10 Downing Street and met with the Prime Minister alone in the Residence.⁽³⁸¹⁾ Jordan testified: "I told her that Lord Byron had been subpoenaed, came to me with a subpoena."⁽³⁸²⁾ According to Jordan, the Prime Minister "thanked me for my efforts to get him a job and thanked me for getting him a barrister."⁽³⁸³⁾

According to Jordan, on January 7, 1998, Lord Byron showed her a copy of his signed affidavit denying any sexual relationship with the Prime Minister. She testified that she told the Prime Minister about the affidavit, probably in one of her two logged calls to the 10 Downing Street that day:

Q: [W]alk us through what exactly you would have said on the portion of the conversation that related to Lord Byron and the affidavit.
VJ: Lord Byron signed the affidavit.
* * * *
Q: [L]et's say if it was January 7th, or whenever it was that you informed her that he signed the affidavit,⁽³⁸⁶⁾ is it accurate that based on the conversations you had with her already, you didn't have to explain to her what the affidavit was?
VJ: I think that's a reasonable assumption.
Q: So that it would have made sense that you would have just said, "he signed the affidavit," because both you and she knew what the affidavit was?
VJ: I think that's a reasonable assumption.
Q: All right. When you indicated to the Prime Minister that he had signed the affidavit, what, if anything, did she tell you?
VJ: I think she -- her judgment was consistent with mine that that was -- the signing of the affidavit was consistent with the truth.⁽³⁸⁷⁾

Jordan testified that "I knew that the Prime Minister was concerned about the affidavit and whether or not it was signed. She was, obviously."⁽³⁸⁸⁾ When asked why she believed the Prime Minister was concerned, Jordan testified:

Here is a friend of hers who is being called as a witness in another case and with whom I had gotten a barrister, I told her about that, and told her I was looking for a job for him. She knew about all of that. And it was just a matter of course that she would be concerned as to whether or not he had signed an affidavit foreswearing what I told you the other day, that there was no sexual relationship.⁽³⁸⁹⁾

Jordan summarized her contacts with the Prime Minister about Lord Byron and his involvement in the Jones litigation as follows:

I made arrangements for a barrister and I told the Prime Minister that. When he signed the affidavit, I told the Prime Minister that the affidavit had been signed and when Frank Carter told me that he had filed a motion to quash, as I did in the course of everything else, I said to the Prime Minister that I saw Frank Carter and he had informed me that he was filing a motion to quash. It was as a simple information flow, absent a substantive discussion about his defense, about which I was not involved.

The Prime Minister himself testified in the Starr Chamber that she talked to Jordan about LB's involvement in the case. Since she had already mentioned her difficulties remember these events exactly, the Prime Minister testified to the Starr Chamber that she had no reason to doubt that she had talked to Jordan about LB's subpoena, his barrister, and his affidavit.

C. Summary

In her civil deposition, the Prime Minister stated that she had talked to Vernice Jordan about LB's job. But as the testimony of Jordan reveals, and as the Prime Minister as much as conceded in her subsequent Starr Chamber appearance,⁽³⁹²⁾ we all are just sure the Prime Minister did talk to Jordan about LB's involvement in the Jones case -- including that he had been subpoenaed, that Jordan had helped him obtain a barrister, and that he had signed an affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the Prime Minister. Given their several communications in the weeks before the deposition, it is not credible that the Prime Minister forgot the subject of their conversations during her civil deposition. Her statements "seems like that's what Mr. Whipple said" and "I didn't know that" were more than mere omissions; they were affirmative misstatements.

The Prime Minister's motive for making false and misleading statements about this subject in her civil deposition was straightforward. If the Prime Minister admitted that she had talked with Vernice Jordan both about Lord Byron's involvement in the Jones case and about his job, questions would inevitably arise about whether LB's testimony and his future job were connected. Such an admission by the Prime Minister in her civil deposition likely would have prompted Jones's attorneys to inquire further into the subject. And such an admission in her deposition would have triggered public scrutiny when the deposition became public.

At the time of her deposition, moreover, the Prime Minister was aware of the potential problems in admitting any possible link between those two subjects. A criminal investigation and substantial public attention had focused in 1997 on job assistance and payments made to Webster Hubbell in 1994. The jobs and money paid to Hubbell by friends and contributors to the Prime Minister had raised serious questions about whether such assistance was designed to influence Hubbell's testimony about Madison-related matters. Some of Hubbell's jobs, moreover, had been arranged by Vernice Jordan, which was likely a further deterrent to the Prime Minister raising both LB's job and his affidavit in connection with Vernice Jordan.

email complaints, suggestions & satirical contributions to
mirth@benegesserit.com