8) Muriel Gray : "one of the most insulting things"

Intro Contact / Links Blog GW comments


Main Menu

Intro) Listen to Muriel Gray lie
1) Muriel Gray's High Court claim 17 Dec 09 against Geoff Widders
2) Proof of the date of Geoff Widders novel
3) Muriel Gray lied to the audience
4) Costs and Gillian Cross


5) The Ancient 2000 does not exist


6) Deception Exposed


7) "A tomorrow's chip wrapper affair "


8) Muriel Gray "one of the most insulting things"


9) "best investigative journalism in the field today "


10) Support for a lie?


11) GW Book


12) Muriel Gray's "homage"(s)


13) FantasyCon 2012




Intro) Summary of LEGAL SECTION
A) Letter to Lord Woolf


B) "Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here"


C) Appendix 2 : Declaratory Judgment


D) Appendix 3 : Law Commission


E) Mr Justice Roth's reply. GW comments


Fi) Two Complaints to Ms Judy Anckorn, "Office for Judicial Complaints" (OJC)


Fii) Complaint to Sir John Brigstocke, "Judicial Ombudsman"


Fiii) Letter to both Ms Anckorn (OJC), and Sir John Brigstocke


G) Complaint to the "Solicitor's Regulation Authority "


H) Nichola Evans of Browne Jacobson fabricated costs


I) Chancery Division


J) Report of the Lord Neuberger Committee


K) Letter of Intent


Muriel Gray

Geoff Widders


RSS Feeds / Share

[Valid RSS]

Subscribe in a reader

Share |


Read / Sample / Purchase Flight of the Shaman

Read 'Flight of the Shaman' online

Download from this site

Flight of the Shaman [pdf]




"So obviously he was a nutter."


8) Muriel Gray: “one of the most insulting things”

Muriel Gray


From:    G Widders

To:        Muriel Gray [and her legal team]

Harper Collins [Executive Officers]

Date:     8 July 2010

In common with my other letters to Ms Gray, her legal team and HarperCollins, I sent them the full six page version of the following abridged letter on 8 July 2010, asking if there was anything to which they objected, etc. 

Muriel Gray: “one of the most insulting things”

In 2004, in her interview in front of an audience composed of members of the public, writers, etc. Ms Gray stated that I had written to HarperCollins, informing them (in her words) “she's stolen my story.” Ms Gray also stated in her interview that [in her expert opinion] my book was “practically the double” of her book. In her interview she explained that HarperCollins lawyers had replied to my allegations, as follows;-

Muriel Gray: ...“And the lawyer sent this letter back to him and said, it was one of the most insulting things, he said: we can see the similarities but that's simply because of the clichéd nature of the material (big laugh).”

In common with her lie that my work was written “long after” hers was in print, Ms Gray has also placed a slant upon the HarperCollins involvement that is not true. In the letter that they sent to me HarperCollins lawyers did not simply write an insulting reply as Ms Gray stated.

As my webpage 'Muriel Gray lied to the audience' states, HarperCollins lawyers began their letter to me, cc: Ms Gray, by explaining;-

“We write further to your letters of 9 August 2001, and 11 September 2001, 1 October 2001 and our letters of 16 August 2001, and 12 September 2001. We have now had the opportunity to consider the points you raise in detail and have discussed the matter at some length, with external Intellectual Property Counsel. We have the following comments to make:-”

The “comments” made by HarperCollins in their letter of reply totalled;-

  • eleven numbered paragraphs

  • nine bulletin points

  • 2½ sides of A4.

Ms Gray informed the audience that HarperCollins had simply dismissed the “nutter” with “one of the most insulting things,” viz: “we can see the similarities but that's simply because of the clichéd nature of the material (big laugh).”

Ms Gray had managed to work the unsuspecting audience up into a “big laugh” - she achieved the “big laugh” by means of lies and misrepresentation, viz: she lied about the dates of our work, and, although she did not mention me by name, she lied that I am a “nutter.” She then misrepresented the HarperCollins reply.

Following Ms Gray stating that my book is “practically the double” of her book, she informed the audience that she disagreed with what she had stated to be the HarperCollins lawyers opinion;-

Muriel Gray: “So stuff the Harper Collins lawyers and their clichés. Being a lawyer there’s a cliché. Don’t give me clichés.”

[The above can be heard in the audio version of the interview – it is missing from the transcript].

Ms Gray again referred to “clichés” when an audience member reminded her of a film, named “Virus”;-

Muriel Gray: Yes, it was, that's right - and there was that robot thing and I was thinking, oh no! So I should have sued them, and then they could have said, no it's just because of the clichéd material (laughs) So…I don't know…Maybe I'm just a walking cliché. I'm really depressed now (laughs).

Both Ms Gray and I agree that the two books are “practically the double” - we both seem to also agree that the HarperCollins opinion was incorrect. Indeed Ms Gray appears to go somewhat further in her condemnation of the HarperCollins opinion – perhaps she might explain what she meant by;-

“So I should have sued them, and then they could have said, no it's just because of the clichéd material.”

Ms Gray informed the audience that the HarperCollins solicitor simply dismissed all these matters by stating, “one of the most insulting things...” In so doing Ms Gray deceived the audience as to the true nature of the HarperCollins letter. She linked that misrepresentation with her lie regarding the dates of our works, with that of the “nutter,” in order to raise a “big laugh.”




Flight of the Shaman






























My undertaking

If there is anything that I have stated on this site that is not correct; if Muriel Gray, Harper Collins, Browne Jacobson, or any person(s) mentioned in these pages, contacts me and provides the evidence or counter argument to show that I am not correct, or...

if there is anything that I have stated that anybody believes misrepresents them in any way, if they provide me with their arguments...

then, if necessary, I will consider removing the material, and/or publish a correction, and/or apologise.

If I do not hear anything (nobody has complained to me since I set up this site in March 2010) then I can only assume the accuracy of everything on this site, and that nobody has been misrepresented in any way.

G Widders