P. 1
Baigent and Leigh -V- Random House Group Limited [2006]

Baigent and Leigh -V- Random House Group Limited [2006]

|Views: 20|Likes:
Published by Fuzzy_Wood_Person
Case concerning books written by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh and alleged plagiarism from the works of Dan Brown
Case concerning books written by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh and alleged plagiarism from the works of Dan Brown

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Fuzzy_Wood_Person on May 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





322.This is a composite document. The first part came from the internet an article at

323.The second part of the document (which starts at page 13) is headed “Jesus the Man”.
The source of pages 13-25 has been largely agreed. In a copy produced for the trial
the words coloured red have been agreed as being drawn from HBHG. That
represents the vast amount of that part of this document. It is reflected in the fact that
on page 352 of US HBHG there is a pencil marking and the page is turned over and in
pencil is written “Jesus survived” in Blythe Brown’s handwriting.

324.Faced with this Mr Brown wriggled in the witness box. He picked on the word
“behaviour” in the last line on page 25. This was spelt in UK style and he opined that
Blythe would not write a piece of text using an English spelling. He suggested there
were instances of English style in the text. He expressed the view that this was a
complete document which had been downloaded from the internet. He was unable to
identify the relevant internet document and none has been identified. This is a classic
example of where Blythe’s absence in my view tells against the Defendants. I should
observe that in the text at page 19 the word “behavior” is spelt in US style. This is a
US spelling out of the US version of HBHG.

325.I was unimpressed with Mr Brown’s attempts to explain away this document. It is plain
that the document was drawn from HBHG and I am satisfied that the Claimants’ case is
made out that this document was created by Blythe Brown before the Synopsis using

326.In the “properties” of “Jesus Survived” it is stated that it had been edited for a total of
18 minutes. The Defendants rely on this point as showing that it is far more likely that
the complete document had been downloaded from the internet which could reflect 18
minutes. That length of time cannot possibly reflect copying out by Blythe Brown and
creating “Jesus The Man” (I agree). There maybe something in that point but I have
not had a full and complete explanation. If I had been shown internet documents that
would have been of assistance. If I had had evidence from Blythe Brown on this point
that would have been of considerable assistance. There remains the possibility that
the final produced document was downloaded in 18 minutes or copied in 18 minutes
from another document which reflects Blythe Brown’s true work and is now lost. Once
again in my view Blythe Brown’s absence counts against the Defendants and this point
cannot be used against the Claimants detailed analysis in the respect of the balance of
the document.

327.Nevertheless once again this does not take the matter much further. I do not accept
that Mr Brown used it when he wrote the Synopsis. I am not convinced that it can be
established that he was aware of it at the time he wrote the Synopsis.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->