We can accept that Mrs. Norvill may have sought, at the time of the facts, in the interest of the performance of King Lear in its entirety, in order to maintain good relations with all members of the distribution …However, we consider that, as counsel for Mr. Rush submitted, Mrs. Norvill his relationship with Mr. Rush, as described by these witnesses did not sit well with her claims that she felt “compromised”, “pressure”, “extremely intimidated”, “scared”, “threatened” and “panicked”. That is to say, there was other evidence suggesting that Ms Norvill is a contemporary behavior was not consistent with the claims she made at the trial concerning Mr. Rush driving.
For these reasons, we do not consider that the incorrect reference to the importance that the judge attached to Mrs. Norvill of the contemporary statements to journalists should be considered as important.
Other contemporary conduct of Mrs. Norvill, occurring, when it is not subject to the same constraints as those that apply in the promotion of the interviews, was also seemingly incompatible with the conduct of Mr. Rush, on which she gave evidence, and justifies the assessment by the judge.