Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






Iii) Stability of the relationship?

(a) Generally

The pursuer’s position is that she and WM had a normal relationship. Although they had tiffs from time to time, they had no more disagreements than any other couple. She denied the suggestion that on many occasions she and WM fell out and would not speak for some months. Although she and WM had fallen out, they had reconciled weeks before his death. She was with WM “a few weeks just before he died. We had it resolved. It was all resolved.” The pursuer accepted that she did not attend WM’s family events, explaining that she did not get on with WM’s family. Later she accepted that between the mid-90s and 2007 she had no contact with WM’s family, adding, “They had no respect for William.”

 

The defender’s position is that the relationship between the pursuer and WM was unstable; that they “broke up” frequently; that the pursuer and members of her family threatened WM, causing him substantial stress; that WM was so concerned about the threats that he recorded telephone conversations with the pursuer; that WM continued the relationship in the hope that the pursuer would repay money that she borrowed from him, but eventually abandoned hope of repayment; that they fell out in about September 2007; that the relationship was ended finally before WM died; and that WM was glad that the relationship had ended.

 

The defender said that the pursuer attended two of his family events with WM in the early 1990s (one in 1993 and another in 1994). He last saw the pursuer at the wedding of Susan McClung on the 12th of August 1994. He did not think that he had seen her since then. On Christmas Day WM generally spent the day with his family and stayed overnight at his parents' home. He couldn't believe that WM went to the pursuer's house on the evening of Christmas Day.

 

Latterly, WM had concerns about the pursuer having a drink problem. Years before his death WM told the defender that “it was a stressed and harassed relationship.”

 

In July 2006 the defender, WM and other family members went on a trip to Argentina. During the trip WM never mentioned the pursuer's name or said that he would phone her.

 

Cross-examined, the defender said that he never saw any Christmas presents or Christmas cards given to WM by the pursuer, nor did WM ever mention any such gifts or cards to him. The defender certainly did not remember having lunch with the pursuer and others at William's cottage after 1994. He confirmed that WM had told him that he had received threats from the pursuer's family. As to who had made the threats, WM mentioned a brother-in-law at one point. I noted the following:

Q. ‘Did he say why he was being threatened?’

Q. ‘Maybe because he wasn't doing what you wanted him to do. I don't know. There must have been a reason for him to be threatened.’

 

The defender did not know, as suggested by the pursuer, that WM was an important part of her family. Nor did he know of WM attending her family weddings, christenings, first communions or anniversaries. He knew nothing of a video recording (taken at a wedding) which WM allegedly brought home and showed to his family, including the defender.



 

The pursuer asserted that WM's uncle, Ken, said to her that if he had known that she was unaware of WM's death, he would have told her. The defender's response was:

“I didn't know Ken had said that. It's strange that he had said that because he told me that it was a damned shame, the stress that you had caused William.”

 

The defender did not remember the pursuer answering WM's telephone when the pursuer called WM at West Cottage.

 

I noted the following:

Q. ‘Do you know if William and I had tiffs before?’

A. ‘Oh yes, many times.’

Q. ‘Would you say that that's quite normal in a relationship?’

A. ‘No.’

Q. ‘It's normal for one party to say, “I'm packing up and taking my stuff”?’

A. ‘My first wife, … we were married 18 years and once only did we have a small quarrel over a hen, … a simple thing like that…’

 

Q. ‘William told his Uncle Ivan that he had concerns that I may have a drink problem?’

A. ‘Yes…’

 

Q. ‘Do you remember William telling you and Isabel (the defender's wife) round about May 2007 that we were thinking of emigrating?’

A. ‘No. Never.’

Q. ‘And selling everything up and going abroad? It was discussed at a first communion and Isabel said, “As long as you go somewhere hot”?’

A. ‘Never. I mean, William's house had a lot to be done to it, so how could … No. That was never mentioned to me, anything about emigrating. I can't understand that.’

 

(b) Tape recordings

A remarkable feature of this case is that shortly before his death WM arranged to record telephone calls made to him by the pursuer. I regard as significant not only the content of the conversations, but the fact that WM felt compelled to record them in the first place. Even the pursuer claimed to be surprised that WM had his telephone 'bugged' so that he could record her telephone calls. The calls contain threats; references to the relationship being over; arrangements for the collection of the pursuer’s car and belongings from WM’s cottage; confirmation that WM was glad that relationship over; and exchanges from which I infer that the relationship had ended and that before his death WM was attempting to extricate himself amicably and finally from the relationship.

 

During proof the parties agreed the accuracy of the recordings made by WM and the transcripts of the recordings produced by the defender. They also agreed that the ‘FEMALE’ and the ‘MALE’ referred to in the transcripts are the pursuer and WM respectively.

 

(c) The relationship had ended before WM’s death

WM’s sister, Victoria McClung, lives in Forfar. At the time of WM’s death she was very close to him. They spoke by telephone weekly. In the month before his death she met him three times. In the months before his death WM spoke to her about his relationship with the pursuer. He mentioned that he was unhappy. He was very agitated and very distressed. Asked if WM discussed “what the relationship was by that time” she replied, “There wasn’t a relationship.” I noted the following exchange:

Q. ‘Why do you say that?’

A. ‘Not a relationship that was normal.’

Q. ‘Why do you say that?’

A. ‘Because he was very unhappy.’

Q. ‘Do you know why?’

A. ‘He’d been distressed with threats and phone calls.’

Q. ‘Did he say where the threats came from?’

A. ‘It just seemed to be (the pursuer) or family.’

Asked why she said that the relationship was not normal, she replied, “Why would William be taping somebody?” She confirmed that WM said that he was receiving threats and threatening phone calls. Asked by the pursuer if he had said who was making the threats, the witness paused then replied, “When I stayed on my own William phoned and said that he had received a phone call to say there was a bullet with his name on it. He didn’t say it was to do with you.” She did not know who had made that threat. Here the witness had an opportunity to tailor or exaggerate her testimony to suit the defender’s case. That she did not do so confirmed my impression of the witness as credible and reliable.

The witness said that WM was not stressed about working on his house. He enjoyed it. It was his pride and joy.

 

Andrew Johnston is a security systems engineer. About two to three months before his death WM told him that he felt that he was being threatened over the phone. He wanted to record telephone conversations with the pursuer. “All I recall is she was making sort of threats over the telephone.” The witness provided a recorder and audio cassettes with which to tape-record telephone calls. He identified the two audio cassettes lodged in process by the defender as those supplied by him. He saw the cassettes in the recorder in WM’s cottage.

 

WM told the witness that he was trying to get rid of the pursuer. But he was holding on, trying to get his money back. Later he said that he was finished with her and was writing off the money. He just wanted peace, __ to move on with his life and finish his house.

 

John Baird described the relationship between the pursuer and WM as, “Odd. Erratic.” WM was very unhappy with the relationship. It was very odd. He did not get the impression that they were living together as man and wife. Asked to expand on what he meant by ‘odd’, the witness deponed that WM never went on holidays, or to parties or weddings with the pursuer. He never told the witness that he had taken the pursuer on holiday. The witness did not recall WM ever taking the pursuer to family events, __ meaning WM’s family events. WM never spoke to the witness about attending all the pursuer’s family events.

WM’s health deteriorated. He was very stressed latterly. WM did not explain what was causing the stress, but the witness understood that the relationship was the cause. Pressed on this issue in cross-examination, he said that WM told him that he was putting extra effort into terminating the relationship, which caused a vast increase in stress. Moreover the witness observed signs of stress in WM. WM was not worried about the time taken to renovate the cottage. He was quite relaxed about it.

 

WM’s uncle, Edwin Ivan Wood, formed the impression that the relationship between WM and the pursuer “appeared to be a bit of convenience.” Five or six years ago at a wedding WM said he had no desire to get married. The witness gave unchallenged testimony to the effect that before he died, WM told him that that he had “sent back a key.” Although Mr. Wood was not pressed for detail, from the context I understood him to mean that WM had sent a key to the pursuer’s house back to her.

 

The defender deponed that WM told him (concerning “the last problem that he had” with the pursuer) that this time he would never go across the pursuer’s door again.

Although WM had said that on previous occasions, in the defender’s opinion this time must have been very different because WM had tape-recorded telephone conversations with the pursuer.

In cross-examination, Mr. Gibb, solicitor for the defender, directed the pursuer to the transcript of phone calls,

6/5/3 of process,

at page 9, which includes this passage:

‘FEMALE: All of that, I am so happy that I do not have to ever look at you

ever ever again.

MALE: Uh huh.

FEMALE: You're finished.

MALE: Uh huh.

FEMALE: So finished...

MALE: Mhm hm.

FEMALE: ... but you don't believe that you're finished. You think that I'll be back in contact with you. I will never forgive you for what you did to me, ever.’

The pursuer agreed that she had spoken the words attributed to her.

 

Mr. Gibb referred to the following passage at page 10:

‘FEMALE: So, anyway, I'm glad it's all over and I'm glad I am moving forward and I'm certainly not taking anything else to do with you, and I'm just sad that I stuck it out as long as I did with you.’

The pursuer responded, “That's no different from any other argument any other couple would have.”

 

Mr. Gibb referred to the following passage at page 15:

‘FEMALE: And that's us finished, and as far as I'm concerned, …’

The pursuer accepted that she had said these words.

 

Mr. Gibb referred to a passage at page 17:

‘FEMALE: Regardless of it, there is no more playing with my head, there's no more of me playing with you. I have just decided that I'm moving on.

MALE: That's good.

FEMALE: That final week was the final straw.

MALE: Good.

FEMALE: The final straw.

MALE: Good. So that's no problem. The car's washed anyway and ready for him a week on Saturday.’

The pursuer's response was, “This is so ridiculous. I have a tiff with my partner…”

Mr. Gibb asked her again if she had said the words attributed to her. She replied, “I didn't say 'there's no more of you playing with my head'.”

 

Mr. Gibb referred to a passage at page 18:

‘FEMALE: So you get on with your life, and I wish you the very best of luck.’

The pursuer accepted that she had said that, __ “As couples do when they have arguments.”

 

I noted the following exchange:

Q. ‘You never got back after 12th September?’

A. ‘I didn't know he was dead. I resorted to saying, “If we're finished, I'll collect my car.” ’

 

Mr. Gibb suggested that it had been arranged that 'Peter' would come to WM's cottage and pick up the pursuer's car and her belongings. She replied, “It was not arranged. It was a threat to William. I just really wanted to upset him. I know it was wrong and I wish I hadn't. But I had no intentions of picking up any car. I had no intentions of moving my belongings.” She regretted having made the threat to upset WM.

 

Mr Gibb directed the pursuer to a passage at page 49 of the transcript,

6/5/3of process:

‘FEMALE: What did you do to help me? For one week when I was going through stress, where were you? What did you do to help? Jacqueline is now on her way [emphasis supplied]. I've got it all sorted out. I'm working. I've got everything sorted out. I've got my January sorted out. I've got my work sorted out and my nursery. I've got everything else sorted out. What did you do for me? Know what Big Peter said?

MALE: Mhm.

FEMALE: He says, "See William, I would like to go up and have a wee word with him" ’

Pressed on the meaning of the words, ‘What did you do to help me? For one week when I was going through stress, where were you? What did you do to help? Jacqueline is now on her way’[emphasis supplied] the pursuer that she did not to understand the words. Thereafter she said that she could not remember what she meant by those words. I find her responses to be entirely unconvincing.

 

Mr. Gibb referred to a passage at page 55:

‘FEMALE: Right, bottom line. Now, the bottom line, it doesnae matter about family. The bottom line is what do we care about each other? What do we care about each other? You don't give a shit for me because you didn't give a shit. You never helped me, William. You left me in all the mess that I was in and you left me to do it.’

Asked if she said that, the pursuer replied, “I would never say, 'doesnae'. That speaks for itself. I'm not accepting that comment.”

 

WM’s Handwritten Notes, 6/1/3 of process, include, inter alia, the following entries:

‘Oct 15 Monday 13.49

Jacqueline called arranging for Peter Howison to collect her car and other various belongings. Proposed Sat. 20th or Sun 21st to be picked up.’

 

‘Oct 18 Thursday 20.59

Jacqueline called to change pick up of car & belongings to Saturday 27th.’

 

Mr. Gibb drew the pursuer’s attention to the entries in a document headed 'MESSAGES ON WILLIAM'S MOBILE PHONES',

6/5/6of process:

'Blue phone.

12-12-07

Bring my car over- we can then put a complete closure on this unless of course you want Pete to collect this Sat.’

Mr. Gibb asked what was meant by the words, 'Bring my car over- we can then put a complete closure on this…' The pursuer replied that it was said in jest. WM had heard that quite a few times over their 17-year relationship. WM knew it would blow over again and it would be back to normal again. Or, if not, Peter would have gone and collected the car. She did not have the car collected because she had every intention of going back to WM again after “the few days of we had a tiff. I never truly believed that William and I would be finished.”

 

(d) Threats of harm to WM

The pursuer was asked about an allegation by WM that she had been making threatening phone calls to him. She replied:

“William and I were in a very good relationship. We had our tiffs like anyone else. And normally what would happen, if I didn't get my own way, I would be, 'We're finished, William. We're not going back together.' And that's how our relationship would be, __ like any other relationship. People fall in and people fall out. And, yes, William would have been annoyed that I was saying 'Yeah, we're finished. We're not moving forward.' I understand he could have said that, at that time.”

Asked if it was correct that WM was frightened of her, she responded, “I wouldn't think so.”

Asked if she had ever threatened to get someone from Glasgow to harm WM, she replied, “I don't think so. I may have. I don't think so. In the heat of the moment I may have.”

Asked who that person may have been, she replied, “It could have been one of my brother-in-laws [sic].”

Asked if she had ever said to WM that she would get one of her brothers-in-law put on him, she replied, “Yes. I said that on occasions. We'd been together 17 years and that was always one of my defences.” On occasion she threatened to get her brother-in-law to 'have a word with' WM.

 

Mr Gibb referred the pursuer to a passage at page 46 of the transcript

6/5/3 of process:

‘FEMALE: Before I phone my mum…

MALE: Right.

FEMALE: … to get all the heavy mob out, everybody involved…’

The pursuer laughed at this point. It seemed to me that her laughter was inappropriate and forced. She accepted that she said these words, claiming that they were spoken “in jest”. Later, when Mr. Gibb pressed her on the same passage, her response was, “I said that on many occasions. William would not have been frightened by that.” The following exchange ensued:

Q. ‘That was not very nice?’

A. ‘No. It was a nasty thing I did.’

 

(e) Arrangements to remove the Pursuer’s belongings

Mr Gibb suggested to the pursuer that it had been arranged that ‘Peter’ would come to WM’s cottage and pick up the pursuer’s car and her belongings. She replied, “It was not arranged. It was a threat to William. I just really wanted to upset him. I know it was wrong and I wish I hadn’t. But I had no intentions of picking up any car. I had no intentions of moving my belongings.” She regretted having made the threat to upset WM.

 

(f) WM’s stated reason for staying in the relationship

Asked if WM ever said why he had remained in the relationship with the pursuer, the defender said that during the relationship the pursuer had got quite a lot of money from WM, always on the promise that it would be repaid. He hoped to get the money back because he needed it to pay for the extension to his cottage. “That was one of the reasons that he hung on so long, __ hoping to get this money back.” It was finished often. The transcripts are witness to this. She got him back again through persistent phone calls.

In cross-examination I noted the following:

Q. ‘You're suggesting that William stayed in the relationship just really in the hope that I was going to give him money back?’

A. ‘Yes. It was a very stressful relationship he had with you. And the only reason that he kept it up was in the hope that he was going to get the money that he had given you back. He told me often that when Miss Carrigan gets a good job she's going to give me the money back. To my knowledge you never got a good job to give him the money back.’

 

(g) The Pursuer and WM’s family

Asked in cross-examination how she got on with Victoria (WM’s sister) the pursuer replied, “Actually, not so bad.” I noted the following exchange:

Q. ‘If she says that William’s relationship with you had turned sour a long time ago under pressure from your threats and your alcoholism, is that true?’

A. [After a noticeable pause] ‘It’s not true.’

Q. ‘If she says that she went to William’s house on his death and found the fridge fully stocked and the house looking lived in?’

A. ‘I’d be very surprised.’ [Then] ‘It’s not true. William’s fridge was never well stocked. I remember a case in a Sheriff Court. This was one of the points put forward. We were camping out over there. There was no kitchen and no bathroom.’

 

The pursuer’s sister, Mrs. Kathleen Feeney, deponed that the pursuer did not go to WM’s family functions from 1994 onwards. She did not like them. It was probably mutual.

 

The pursuer's mother, Mrs. Sarah Quinton, said that generally she saw the pursuer and WM once a month. They often stayed overnight at her house, when the pursuer and WM shared a bedroom. When she discovered that WM had died she and her family were absolutely devastated. WM was a big part of their family. She loved him just like a son. The worst aspect was that she and the pursuer had not been told of WM's death. They had been unable to attend his funeral and say a last goodbye. In her lifetime it was the worst thing she had ever heard.

 

She agreed that the pursuer can be a bit hot headed on occasions.

 

She never spoke to WM's family. She said, “I only know what (the pursuer) told me.”

 

She did not know that WM was so concerned about telephone conversations that he tape-recorded telephone calls. It became clear during cross-examination that Mrs. Quinton knew less about the pursuer’s relationship with WM than appeared to be the case during examination in chief. She was directed to several passages in the transcripts,

6/5/3 of process:

Page 9C

‘FEMALE: All of that, I am so happy that I do not have to ever look at you

ever ever again.

MALE: Uh huh.

FEMALE: You're finished.

MALE: Uh huh.

FEMALE: So finished...

MALE: Mhm hm.

FEMALE: ... but you don't believe that you're finished. You think that I'll be back in contact with you. I will never forgive you for what you did to me, ever.’

The witness agreed that the pursuer had never told her about that.

 

Page 18

‘FEMALE: So you get on with your life, and I wish you the very best of luck.’

Mr. Gibb suggested, “That's pretty conclusive?” The witness replied, “I'm quite sure many a couple said that to each other in a lifetime.”

 

Page 46

‘FEMALE: Before I phone my mum…

MALE: Right.

FEMALE: … to get all the heavy mob out, everybody involved…’

I noted the following question and answer:

Q. ‘Would it surprise you that (the pursuer) admitted that she threatened William to get her brothers-in-law to come out?’

A. ‘Possibly to pick up her car. The brothers-in-law wouldn't want to harm William. Everybody loved William.’

Mr. Gibb suggested that the pursuer would not use the phrase 'the heavy mob' in reference to picking up a car. The witness replied, “I don't know what that means. I'm very surprised that (the pursuer) would use that language.”

 

Page 49

‘FEMALE: My opinion is of you, which everyone else's opinion is...

MALE: Uh huh.

FEMALE: What did you do to help me? For one week when I was going through stress, where were you? What did you do to help? Jacqueline is now on her way. I've got it all sorted out. I'm working. I've got everything sorted out. I've got my January sorted out. I've got my work sorted out and my nursery. I've got everything else sorted out. What did you do for me? …’

The witness was surprised that the pursuer had used such language.

 

Page 55

‘FEMALE: Right, bottom line. Now, the bottom line, it doesnae matter about family. The bottom line is what do we care about each other? What do we care about each other? You don't give a shit for me because you didn't give a shit. You never helped me, William. You left me in all the mess that I was in and you left me to do it.’

The witness said that she would not expect the pursuer to use such language.

 

She saw the pursuer and WM staying together at Tippetknowes very often. If they didn't go to her house once a month, she would go to Winchburgh or to WM's cottage and see them there.

I noted, inter alia, the following questions and answers:

Q. ‘Witnesses say they never saw (the pursuer) at WM's house?’

A. ‘We [emphasis supplied] have witnesses to the contrary. It's really unbelievable that they' d say… I did go to William's cottage, maybe once in a couple of months. I'd have tea…’

 

Q. ‘William told friends that he was delighted that he and (the pursuer) had completely finished. Does that surprise you?’

A. ‘Yes. He took (the pursuer) to a placement three or four days before he died. I'm quite sure if William didn't want to, or if they were really finished, he wouldn't run all that way just to take (the pursuer) to a placement.’

 

The witness was not aware that pursuer owed William a significant sum of money.

Both the witness and WM had provided money to buy the pursuer's house at Winchburgh. She was aware that WM had provided the pursuer with money with which to buy a car. She could not dispute that the pursuer had borrowed about £8,000 from WM and had repaid about £800. She would not believe that WM told friends that he was keeping in with the pursuer in order to get his money back: if they were finished the pursuer would have paid the money back, even if the money came from her mother (the witness).

 

The witness was surprised to learn about threats to WM, tape recordings and concerns for his safety. She would also be surprised if the pursuer conceded that she did make threats. She conceded that at one point the pursuer did have a drink problem. She considered that WM and the pursuer "were a normal couple."

 

The pursuer directed her mother to passages in the transcripts,

6/5/3 of process:

Page 2D

‘FEMALE: …when the next time that you'll be in because I want the green car collected from the house.’

Page 9B-C

‘FEMALE: All of that, I am so happy that I do not have to ever look at you

ever ever again.

MALE: Uh huh.

FEMALE: You're finished.

MALE: Uh huh.

FEMALE: So finished...

MALE: Mhm hm.

FEMALE: ... but you don't believe that you're finished. You think that I'll be back in contact with you. I will never forgive you for what you did to me, ever.’

Page 38E-39B

‘FEMALE: Well, do you want to go a run over and see them?

MALE: When's this?

FEMALE: Well, tomorrow or the next day.

MALE: Well, I'm waiting… first of all I'm waiting on my meter getting changed. I've just come back. I've got a note here. I have to notify them but I'll get back to you on that. I'll do that. I'll get back to you on that.’

 

Q. ‘Does that conversation surprise you?’

A. ‘No. That's what you and William were like: friendly today and not so friendly tomorrow.’

 

 

(h) WM was glad that the relationship had ended

Mr. Gibb founded on page 69 of the transcript, 6/5/3of process:

‘MALE: Anyway, it’ll no’ affect you. It won’t affect me, it won’t affect you because that’s us finito, so it’s good, so that’s fine. All’s well.

FEMALE: And you feel good?

MALE: I’m delighted, yeah.

FEMALE: Fantastic.

MALE: Delighted…’

 

‘MALE: …It’s the best thing that could have happened, and I’m looking forward to seeing Peter tomorrow, getting this all finished, over and done with.’

 

(i) WM was trying to extricate himself amicably from the relationship

In disputing that the relationship had ended before WM’s death, the pursuer founds upon inference from the fact that WM drove her to her work placement.

The defender was surprised to learn that WM had driven the pursuer to a work placement on the 19th of November 2007. His explanation was that the pursuer is very persuasive and must have used a lot of persuasion to induce WM to do it. I accept that the pursuer was very persuasive so far as WM was concerned. But I am also satisfied that WM was attempting to extricate himself from the relationship with the least possible stress. In anticipation of the pursuer’s car being collected from West Cottage he even cleaned it and charged its battery. Moreover in the recording (transcribed in 6/5/3 of process) he sounded disappointed when collection of the car was postponed:

‘MALE: ‘… You told me he’s be here on Saturday.

FEMALE: Peter’s not in any rush.

MALE: Oh, right. Jeezo! Well, that’s it – the battery will be flat again.’

In addition, before WM’s death the pursuer attempted to manoeuvre her way back into his affections. She attempted unsuccessfully to persuade WM to accompany her on an expedition to examine kitchen furniture. WM was, in my opinion, evasive, as disclosed at pages 38E to 39B of the transcripts,

6/5/3 of process:

‘FEMALE: Well, do you want to go a run over and see them?

MALE: When's this?

FEMALE: Well, tomorrow or the next day.

MALE: Well, I'm waiting… first of all I'm waiting on my meter getting changed. I've just come back. I've got a note here. I have to notify them but I'll get back to you on that. I'll do that. I'll get back to you on that.’

John Baird’s impression was that WM wanted to end the relationship in an amicable way, but he never achieved that. Latterly he put more effort into terminating it. For example he began to move items belonging to the pursuer into her car. WM never told him that the pursuer had asked him to move items into her car.

 

(j) The Pursuer’s behaviour after WM’s death

The pursuer deponed that on 19th November 2007 WM drove her to work at a “live-in maternity post.” She claimed that WM had agreed to collect her from the work placement on 24th November 2007 but he died, unknown to the pursuer, on 21st November 2007. She “constantly tried to contact” him and “left messages on his mobile during the next few weeks, with no response.” At first she was confused as to why he was ignoring her messages. Then she was angry with him. She only got one day off from her placement (Saturday 1200 to Sunday 1200) and was “restricted as to how far” she “could pursue and find out what was going on.” Eventually, when her car was roadworthy again, she drove to the cottage to confront him for an explanation as to why he had not collected her as arranged and why he was ignoring her phone calls. There was no sign of WM. The cottage was “isolated.” The front door key had been removed from a plant pot.

She said, “I returned to my placement, still making the constant calls, resorting to text messaging when I got a chance. I returned to the cottage, leaving a note that I was going to call the police if he didn’t contact me. Consequently, three days later there was a contact from the police… I had to remove my car and belongings from William’s property as he had died in late November 2007.”

 

Asked by Mr. Gibb whether she sent Christmas cards or presents to WM, the pursuer said that it was a ridiculous question. When I repeated the question, she replied, “Of course I did.” She agreed that between his death and her finding out about his death she did not send a Christmas card to WM, giving as her reasons,

“…because it was orchestrated that William had left me. I was contacting William constantly … didn't know why he was not returning my calls … went to the cottage, looking for him … completely did not know what was going on. As I said he took me to work on the Monday, was going to collect me on the Saturday. It didn't happen. I was totally confused. As the week went on and I got no contact, nothing from him, from the mobile, absolutely nothing, I did not know what was going on. I certainly wasn't going to get him a Christmas card.”

Asked who had orchestrated the break up, she replied that it was the defender, WM's father. Asked where the defender had orchestrated it, she replied,

“By not telling me that William was dead. I presumed that William,after a few weeks of not returning my calls [emphasis supplied] had decided that … or assumed that … he did not want any more to do with me and I had no understanding of what was going on. I didn't know what was going on. I had no idea.”

 

Mr. Gibb suggested to the pursuer that for two or three weeks after WM's death the defender and his wife were at WM's cottage every day. The defender replied, “Of course they were.” But she said that they knew that she was attempting to contact WM and that she was desperate to contact WM. They had his mobile phone. She called his mobile phone and left messages. Eventually she sent text messages. “They had all my distress calls.”

Mr. Gibb drew her attention to the entries a document headed 'MESSAGES ON WILLIAM'S MOBILE PHONES',

6/5/6 of process:

'Blue phone.

12-12-07

Bring my car over- we can then put a complete closure on this unless of course you want Pete to collect this Sat.

 

13-12-07

I'll be over tomorrow @ 8-30 to collect my car.

Sorry can't get there until 9' o’clock to collect my car. P

Visor. Please after this leave me alone. I wish you both

 

Black phone.

13-12-07.

can you please call with regard to the car. 18.19p.m.'

Mr. Gibb asked, “If Mr. McClung gives evidence that these were the only messages that were on the mobile phone [sic], what do you have to say about that?” The pursuer replied, “I would totally dispute that comment.”

Asked why the defender would try to hide the other mobile phone messages, the pursuer replied, “Because he did not want … I submit he would not want anyone else to know that he had received all the distress messages from me, all the distress messages, and he'd only put this at the end. And that was near the very end of me trying to contact William from the 24th of November. All my distress calls… So where do my calls go? Lost in cyberspace?”

 

The pursuer did not believe that when WM died his family genuinely did not know that she and WM were in a relationship. Asked why she had not made contact with them, she replied that she “contacted William constantly.” She did not contact the family because for the first few weeks [emphasis supplied] she thought, “I'll find out where William is. I'll see what's happening. I didn't contact his family because I never contacted his family over anything, apart from … we did not … we did not get on.”

 

Mr. Gibb referred again to the document headed 'MESSAGES ON WILLIAM'S MOBILE PHONES', comprising 6/5/6 of process. He asked the pursuer what she meant by the words 'put a complete closure on this'. She replied “This texts I did send.” Asked again what she meant by the words, she replied, “Exactly what it says.” Mr. Gibb suggested that it meant that she was finished with WM. She replied, “We could put complete closure on the relationship as William had not contacted me for three weeks.” She was angry. She felt that she had been driven to that. When she used the word “finished” in the transcribed telephone call she meant that the tiff was finished.

I noted the following questions and answers.:

Q. ‘Your understanding was that you and William were finished?’

A. ‘On the 12th of December, no.

(Then) I assumed, yes. I assumed. Yes, I assumed.’

Q. ‘You assumed you were finished prior to his death?’

A. ‘Certainly not. I did not know he had died on the 12th of the 12th.’

I asked the pursuer when her car became roadworthy. She replied that it was about two weeks after she started her work placement, therefore about two weeks after 19th November 2007. Asked when she went to WM's cottage, she replied, “I think a few weeks after that.” Then she said, “It would have been the third weekend.” Then she said, “It was after mid-December.” Asked when, she replied, “I can't remember.” Asked if it was in 2007 or after the New Year, she replied, “Definitely before New Year. Definitely December.”

 

Conclusion

For the reasons already given, I prefer the testimony of the witnesses for the defender to that of the witnesses for the pursuer. The testimony that I accept establishes that the relationship between the pursuer and WM was rather shallow, unstable and volatile; that WM had no intention of marrying; that WM was stressed by the relationship and the threats which he had received; that WM stayed in the relationship in the hope of receiving repayment from the pursuer of a substantial sum of money which he intended to use in renovating his cottage; that before WM’s death the relationship had ended; that WM was glad that it had ended; and that before his death WM was trying a to extricate himself from the remnants of the relationship as amicably as possible.

 

The witness testimony is supported by productions for the defender, including recordings of telephone conversations between the pursuer and WM which confirm that the relationship had ended, as the pursuer knew very well. The pursuer caused WM to put her belongings into her car in order that the car and belongings could be picked up from West Cottage. WM’s handwritten note confirms that such arrangements were being discussed with the pursuer on the 15th and 18th of October 2007. And the notes of text messages received on WM’s mobile phones disclose that the pursuer sent text messages on this topic to WM’s mobile phones in mid-December 2007, after WM’s death.

 

Although not conclusive, the fact that the pursuer had no contact with WM’s family for many years tends to support the other adminicles of evidence that point towards instability in the relationship. Moreover I am not prepared to attach any weight to the pursuer’s mother’s impression of the relationship, which in my opinion depended substantially on what she had been told by the pursuer.

 

Finally, in my opinion, the pursuer’s conduct after WM’s death indicates clearly not only that their relationship was not akin to that of husband and wife, but also that, as the pursuer knew very well, the relationship was over before WM died.

 

The pursuer contends that at the time of WM’s death she and WM were in a loving relationship and living together as if they were husband and wife. Their “tiff” was behind them. If that were true, when WM disappeared without warning and ceased to communicate with her I would expect the pursuer to:

(a) be frantic with worry;

(b) make urgent, effective and, if necessary, exhaustive enquiries concerning his whereabouts and wellbeing;

(c) suppress her feelings and contact WM’s family; and,

(d) if all else failed, contact the police promptly and seek their help in tracing WM.

But I accept without hesitation the defender’s testimony to the effect that after WM’s death only the three text messages specified above were received from the pursuer on WM’s mobile phones. Moreover I do not believe the pursuer’s account of her alleged efforts to contact WM after his death. I regard the pursuer’s accounts of what she did after WM’s death, and her reasons for doing so, as unlikely, untruthful, self-contradictory in parts, lacking any objective support (e.g. production of her own mobile phone records) and wholly unconvincing. For example she did not explain why, if the relationship was “all patched up” she concluded that it was over after not hearing from WM. And her assertion to the effect that when she said to WM, “And that’s us finished”[3] she meant that their “tiff” was finished does not bear examination in the context of the recorded conversation.

 

In my opinion the pursuer did not behave as one would expect a loving wife to behave had her husband disappeared without warning. Her behaviour after WM’s death is further evidence from which I infer that their relationship was not akin to that of a husband and wife and that in any event, as she knew very well, it had ended before WM’s death.

 

Iv) Children

The pursuer and WM did not have any children together. During the pursuer’s cross-examination of the defender I noted the following exchange:

Q. ‘Were you aware that I had a termination?’

A. ‘Yes.’

Q. ‘And William took me to the hospital for the termination?’

A. ‘I don't know anything about that.’

The pursuer asked the defender if he had phoned her at her home (concerning the question of whether or not the termination had taken place). The defender remembered WM phoning him and informing him that the pursuer was pregnant and that she was going to get an abortion. That was all he heard of it. Neither he nor his wife ever phoned the pursuer about anything. He “never had a number to phone.”


Date: 2015-12-11; view: 713


<== previous page | next page ==>
I) Did they live together in the same household? | Affidavit of Paul Donnachie
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.034 sec.)