20 There were aspects of some of Mr Cohen's evidence that have led me to conclude that his account of the relevant events may not be completely accurate. He was a difficult witness in that he insisted on giving his version in his own way, rather than answering questions put to him by his counsel, but this is not the matter that affected his credit. Many of Mr Cohen's answers in cross-examination contained ex post facto justification for what he claimed took place, especially when he was confronted with a conflicting note on the solicitor's file. For example, the file for the purchase of Jasanda Drive contains a copy of a letter dated 28 November 1994 that Mr Bingham said he wrote to Mr and Mrs Cohen. The letter sought instructions with respect to several matters. Mr Cohen said he had no recollection of receiving that letter, but conceded that he must have done. He denied giving instructions with respect to the matters raised in the letter. This is quite contrary to a file note made by Mr Bingham dated 2 December 1994. Mr Cohen justified his denial by asserting that the letter did not require him to give instructions, because he was employing a solicitor to look after his affairs and he would know the answers to the questions raised in the letter. On many occasions in his cross-examination, Mr Cohen said, in answer to questions concerning what he had said or done, that he "felt" that he had said certain things or done certain things. For example, Mr Jackson, counsel for the defendant, put to Mr Cohen that he saw Mr Bingham twice on 14 November 1994, once in the morning and once in the afternoon, as the file note records. Mr Cohen said: