We know it was in the unused material. We know that it was capable of being relevant to the count on the indictment which related to Mr Gordon Taylor, but that doesn't prove that it was within the case papers for Mr Taylor's case, but there's one document which may throw light on this, and it's tab 89 in the files which were provided to you for the purposes of this hearing. It's a note of a conference between the CPS and the MPS on 1 October 2010. If you look at the second page of the note, it's going to come up, the unique reference number, the second page is 18749, it's items 3.10 and 3.11. Item 3.10 says this:
"AH [AH is Mr Husain] stated that thought Thurlbeck is referred to in the Neville email, this does not of itself make him liable or guilty in any way.
"SC [Simon Clements] also agreed, stating that David Perry QC looked at this in the original investigation and stated that if they pursued the element of the email and its contents would not have had any real effect as it had no real evidential value."
There are two points there, Mr Perry. First of all is whether you think you might have seen the "for Neville" email. To be clear, it's highly unlikely you would have seen it on 21 August 2006. If you did see it, it would have been later on when the Taylor papers were being prepared. You can see that the assertion is being put forward there that you did see it. Do you think it's possible?