John Charles Rees Q.C. states in a statement to Mr Duck at the Criminal Appeal Office and in rebuttal to Mr Michael O’Connor for the Leo Abse & Cohen, dated 13^th February 1998, that

Quote: “The applicant (Paginton) was standing outside the window and a short distance from it, when the deceased (Thompson) struck it with a mop. He (Paginton) was in a position to see what occurred. He did not suggest at any time to the police, to my instructing solicitor, to counsel or to the jury,  that the deceased leaned through the window and impaled himself upon glass therein. Indeed his account was wholly inconsistent with such scenario. He said that after the deceased struck the window, he [Thompson] calmed down and moved away from the window. Paginton began to throw shards of glass into the room and about 2 minutes later he heard the deceased shout out “Oh Pag”.

Comment:- Mr Rees says that Paginton did not suggest at any time that Thompson may have impaled himself upon the shard of glass.

Hardly surprising, if, as Paul Paginton states “He was told not to mention this as a possibility as it may do his defence some harm”[Paginton 1999] Paul was frightened and so trusted his barrister & solicitor. I believe Paul did tell them. It was not mentioned in his original police interview of 1997 due to the fact that Paul was in a highly emotional state and in shock and with no sleep.

However, Dr Borer had put this to John Charles Rees Q.C. in his report on the 2^nd December 1997 and was then asked to delete and amend the paragraph [see Tidmarsh statement] which was done.

Why did the defence not take this on board and put it to a jury. Why did they, John Charles Rees, Peter Tidmarsh, Robert Jones, not even tell Paul Paginton that this had been put to them as a possible means of death?. After all, it is Pagintons right to be kept fully informed of all developments, so why didn’t they?

***************************************