Bill & Julia Blackmore

26 Bridge Street

Penistone Sheffield

South Yorkshire S36 6AJ

Tel 01226 762660 Fax 761386

29 May 2000

01904 426712

FAO: The Appeal Committee

Tony Evans, Bev Gibbons, Robert Strickland

C/o Tony Evans

6 Asquith Avenue

York

YO31 0PZ

Dear Tony,

Re: Judicial Appeal Hearing

It’s now three weeks since we wrote to you. (Our letter of the 8th May refers). We are disappointed not to have had a detailed reply by now, although we thought we’d have had an acknowledgement at least. Anyway, in the interim a number of unexpected events have occurred that affect things somewhat. Because of this we have a number of additional points we’d like you to address.

Primarily it relates to one of our accusers, Malcolm Bowers. (The subject in question is minuted on page 8 of our letter of the 10th April.)

This elder made some damning statements against us in front of the judicial committee. He basically accused us of lying about a particular matter. We knew his assertions were false, but all we could do at the time was to state clearly what we knew was true and say we would speak to the parties involved.

Malcolm’s testimony no doubt helped persuade the committee to disfellowship us. It was possibly pivotal in their collective mind…!! However, we now have witnesses who can establish beyond doubt who was telling the truth, and who was lying…!!

We therefore wish to formally accuse him of lying during his testimony.

(NB. If this can be proven and he is thereby discredited we contend that his testimony should be viewed as invalid.)

You may be wondering why we are not following the procedure set out in Matthew 18 when making this serious accusation. Well, by now you will have had time to read all our correspondence, and you will know how elders and committees have handled matters. It will be clear that in our case none of the principles embodied in Matthew 18 regarding the settling of disputes have been applied. (ie. None of our accusers approached us prior to the ‘judicial’ process commencing!) Additionally, Malcolm’s assertions were made in front of the judicial committee itself. They know precisely what was said.

It’s for these reasons we are taking this course. It’s already gone beyond the Matthew 18 stage!

So, because of the rather unique circumstances we have a few questions:

1. Will we be allowed to bring forward these witnesses at the appeal hearing, if we wish, giving them the opportunity to testify about this matter?

2. If our witnesses are allowed to testify and it is proved that he lied . . . what is the position? Will the rest of his testimony be called into question…. will it be totally discounted…. will it be only partially discounted etc….?

3. If partially discounted, on what will the credibility for the rest of his testimony be based?

4. If he is proven to have lied if front of a judicial committee, will his role as an elder be in question, and will his position be viewed as untenable thereafter?

Malcolm constantly repeated that the Society’s “association rules” are the basis for how things are handled – not the Bible! (Paul Cullen and his committee also reiterated this phrase throughout.) Accordingly, we feel that there is an obligation on your part to deal with him by this self-same set of “association rules” – whatever these are! The interests of justice, fairness, and impartiality are not being served if the rules that were applied to us aren’t applied to him…..!! Wouldn’t you agree?

To assist you we will outline the area’s that concern us most. This relates to the procedures that were applied to us when we were accused, that we feel should be applied to him! These are:

a) That he is not told who is making the accusation. (NB. We were not told who our accusers were until a judicial meeting actually commenced.)

b) That he is only told the general nature of the accusation. That he is being accused of lying. (We were told only that we were accused of apostasy. No specific charges were aired until a judicial meeting actually commenced.)

Bearing false witness is a serious matter. (Pro 6:16-19) We are sure you will not turn a blind eye to something like this. Even secular courts have stringent rules about perjury…!

If you do not agree to this would you please outline your reasons?

Finally, you will recall that we earmarked Wednesday the 21st June as a provisional date for meeting. We regret that something more pressing has arisen and we can’t now make that date. May we suggest the following Wednesday the 28th instead? Again, confirmation of this will be subject to the content of your reply.

We await your response in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Bill & Julia Blackmore

CC. Newman & Bond (Solicitors)

Note: Due to our need to confirm the availability of our witnesses we ask that you give us a clear 14 days written notice regarding the suitability of this date.