44
Thursday 17 December 2009
Brian arrived in court at 11:17. There was no sign of Bell, so Brian called Angela Shaw, only to be told, “He’s on
his way.” So much for preparation.
The tall, bearded male reporter came into court carrying a notebook
and a pen only.
At 11:20 Forster and a trainee female barrister were discussing
the case outside court. This infuriated Brian because his counsel was not even
at court.
Brian overheard Forster saying, “There’s no way they can prove...” and
he had Brian’s personal learning journal in his hand, trying to find fault with
it. The police joined Forster outside the court and the entourage
surrounding the prosecutor was in sharp contrast with the fact that Brian sat
alone, waiting patiently for his defence counsel to arrive.
Eventually
Bell arrived and at 11:38 the jury that had never
been properly sworn in filed into court.
The judge explains to the jury that he has had another case to
sentence and a Plea and Case Management Hearing too. “We’ll continue to lunch
then finish about 3pm. Apologies.”
The plan was that DC Godfrey would read out sections of Brian’s interview
statements again. This is highly unusual. If the prosecution has a robust case,
it will focus on that case. But in this trial there was an over-reliance on mere
interview tapes. Godfrey claimed a bad throat and asked a female police
officer to read.
Judge: This
is a first.
Officer Shelley (Michelle Wilkin) takes to the stand and swears to Almighty
God.
Forster and WPC Shelley read transcripts which focus
on what sexual acts a female escort would undertake for money. This bore no
relation to the purpose of the trial and to the allegation against Brian – an attempt to incite another person to
engage in sexual activity.
The purpose of this charade was merely an attempt to blacken Brian’s
name in Court.
Forster and Shelley continue to read ... they are
monotonously reading out material that has no relevance to the indictment. The
prosecution is merely trying to make Brian look bad and trying to establish a bad
reputation.
By 12:00, they are still reading out and it still has nothing to do
with the charge.
At 12:10 the
prisoner who has come to be sentenced has arrived in Court, and Brian’s trial
is adjourned to 2.15pm.
Bell asks the judge what the purpose of all this
reading was.
Judge: Yes, I was wondering what all this reading was about. I agree
with you, Mr Bell. This is an unusual defence,
though.
At 12:22 Brian met his barrister in the canteen. Bell held forth, “The judge was right to say your use
of the internet was research driven. You clearly stumbled across Shelley. You
clearly have no interest in teens.”
At 13:05, Bell left the canteen.
At 13:17, Brian left the canteen to head
back to find his barrister in order to speak with him about his replies to
police officers’ statements under interview. Bell said he was unable to meet until 13.55. A
disconsolate Brian went back to sit in the canteen and make notes in his court
journal.
At 13:50, Maya Walker called Brian to ask how the trial was going.
He merely reported that he was unhappy with the way it was playing out.
At 13:55 Brian and Bell in the canteen as arranged. Brian said, “Roy Bacon told police that I am an author and that I’m always
doing research, so why are the prosecution trying to claim that I wasn’t
conducting research in this matter?”
Bell: We need to recall DC Robbie. I want to ask him about the
DVDs again.
Brian: And when do you propose to call
Geoff Bacon? He’s a vital witness in all of this, especially since the police
are claiming that the conversation of 15 May didn’t take place and I know it
did and Geoff can back that up with firm evidence. Even DC Godfrey questioned
me about 15 May 2008, saying that she knew I was online on that date when I
told the person to fuck off. And then they burnt out the hard drive on his
computer.
Bell: I’ll call him tomorrow or
Monday.
Brian did not like the level of doubt
that always crept into Bell’s voice whenever he asked his
counsel about calling Geoffrey Bacon. Brian wanted the whole story
about the 10-minute house search, the false search warrant and the burnt out
hard drive to emerge in Court, but Bell always seemed reluctant to discuss calling the
witness as to fact.
Brian: I’m sacking you. The CPS will have
to drop Charge 1 because all the girls denied seeing my penis, so there can’t
be exposure. So, when charge 1 is dropped,
then there’s only charge 2 in the New Year with a new jury and it won’t be a
biased jury like this one is.
At this point the barrister became
extremely agitated and angry. He said he was duty bound to call the instructing
solicitor, which he did there and then. “She’s on her way. I’m off to tell the
judge,” said Bell, like a naughty schoolboy who has been found out and goes off
to tell the Headmaster before anyone else can get to him.
It was 2.20. At 2.25 Bell had still not returned. Brian assumed that he
was still with the judge and discussing his having been sacked.
Brian made notes in his journal of his
complaints about his defence counsel. We reproduce them here:
“…My complaints re DB
1.
Judge told him off for being rude
2.
DB rebuked for being continually late
3.
I feel nothing is being given to me by the judge
4.
Why haven’t CPS dropped Charge 1 yet?
5.
Why hasn’t jury been dismissed?
6.
Each time I make a point, DB knocks it down
7.
If Charge 1 is written off, it ought to be
dropped because it should
be out of time
8.
DB and AS have both said from the beginning that
DB is very confident
of winning case 2 (on basis of no under-16s
on website) now it seems much more info is needed
to win – why the change?
9.
Why have we not got a copy of the ITV film crew video?
10.
Why have we not got a true copy of my mobile
phone records?
11.
Why is DB not interrogating witnesses robustly?...”
At 2.35pm,
the case was called back to court.
Bell informed the judge that Brian had asked him
not to represent him any further. The judge agreed to continue with the trial
on the basis that only non-contentious issues would be discussed.
This was completely inappropriate. What should have happened is that
the trial should have been stopped and the jury dismissed because the defendant
was no longer represented. A new trial should have been set for the New Year,
but Charge 1 – the exposure case – could not possibly be added to the indictment
because the females had all denied seeing Brian’s genitals. This would mean
that a new jury would only hear about the incitement case and it is likely that
that spurious allegation would also have had to be dropped because it lacked
merit.
But none of what should have
occurred actually did happen, and at 2.40 the jury filed back in. Bell, the sacked barrister,
continued to sit on the front bench to the left of the judge. It was as if he
had never been sacked by Brian.
Prosecutor Forster began reading from the interview transcripts
again. It ought to be remembered that they had not been signed and that they
did not have a unique reference number on them, so they were inadmissible as
evidence.
Whilst reading it becomes apparent that the first conversation Brian
had with the ‘girl’ was on Faceparty and that they then moved to MSN, but this was something
denied by DC Robbie. Yet no-one appeared to bring
this contradiction to the attention of the Court.
The Court then heard how Brian had challenged DS Tunn to obtain the chatlogs for 28 January 2008 and
how Tunn claimed that he would be unable to obtain
them. Earlier he had agreed that the police were “working closely with
Faceparty.” No-one brought this
contradiction to the Court’s attention, either.
Then the person calling herself WPC Shelley left the stand and DC Godfrey took to the stand. It appeared that she still
had a bad throat.
Forster: Were you present when the
defendant was charged?
Godfrey: Yes, he said he was not
guilty.
Then it was
Bell’s turn to cross-examine the police officer. He had just been dismissed by
Brian in this farcical trial.
Bell: The defendant’s real mobile
phone number was 07758620183. Is that correct?
Godfrey:
Yes.
Bell: Can you look at the number
he has given the alleged ‘girl’ and read it out to the Court please?
Godfrey:
07747519072.
Bell: Would it be accurate to say
that it is the defendant’s number, minus one digit from his real number?
Godfrey:
Yes, it looks like it’s -1 of his real number
Bell: How co-operative was the
defendant on 4 June 2008?
Godfrey:
Very co-operative.
Bell: The document he signed at
the time of his arrest re his email addresses. He didn’t have to give you that
information did he?
Godfrey:
No.
Bell: So is it fair to say that
the defendant has at all times co-operated with the police and been open and
honest?
Godfrey:
He certainly co-operated with police.
Disappointingly, Bell left his cross-examination there. He never
asked DC Godfrey about her visit to the house of Roy and
Geoffrey Bacon on 31 July 2008 in which a computer was
unlawfully seized. He did not ask her why the hard drive was burnt out, or why
the search of the Bacons’ house had lasted for only ten minutes. He did not ask
her why she had called Sorrel Birch (née Pead) to tell Brian’s daughter that her father “is a
paedophile”, or why she had said the same thing to Roy and Geoffrey Bacon and to Nicola Noone and no doubt anyone else who would listen.
Bell had been negligent whilst representing his
client, he continued to be negligent having been dismissed. Either way, the
authors believe that there is substantial incontrovertible evidence that Brian
was ‘being sold down the river’.
After Godfrey left the stand, the statement of Warwick Brown
was read out by Forster at 3.45. However, like all the other
statements it was unsigned and it did not have a unique reference number and it
was thus inadmissible evidence.
As we have shown in an earlier chapter, Warwick Brown was actually residing in London at the time of
this trial and he was still working for Faceparty. But Forster had misled the Court in claiming that Brown
had emigrated to Australia.
The statement had allegedly been made on 19 January 2009. We reproduce
below the most salient points:
“…I am the IT
Manager for the internet social networking site known as ‘Faceparty’. The official company name
behind the site is CIS Internet Ltd, based
at 89½ Worship
Street, London, EC2A 2BF.
I have worked for
the company for approximately 14 months. My
role involves the moderation of user profiles […] In this position I have access to all user accounts and the data
entered by individual users.”
The emphases are ours. Mr Brown clearly states that his role is to
moderate all user profiles. How then did he manage to allow an alleged 14-year-old
girl to create a profile on a website whose terms and conditions stated that
no-one under 16 could become a member? Why, then, did he allow naked
photographs of under-aged girls to be uploaded to the Faceparty website?
These serious questions needed to be answered. And he was living in
London just a few miles from Southwark Crown Court, but the Court had been told
by Forster that Brown had emigrated to Australia, which
makes the prosecutor guilty of perjury when his actions are measured against
the Perjury Act 1911. However, it is likely that, when confronted, Forster
would simply say that he was not a witness, but a prosecutor, and so cannot be
guilty of perjury. In that event, he is then guilty of gross prosecutorial
misconduct at the very least. Furthermore, it demonstrates that Brian Pead is
innocent and that his entire trial was a gross miscarriage of justice.
It also, in our opinion, makes the judge very unprofessional if he
allowed such a comment to be made in his court without asking for robust
evidence.
And it makes Dominic Bell culpable for not conducting his own
investigation into the whereabouts of Warwick Brown – that is what barristers
do, after all.
Mr Brown’s statement then says that only the last IP address is ever
recorded by the system. This means, of course, that the last IP address for Brian’s
account would direct the police to Geoffrey Bacon’s house, which was why they
illegally seized his computer. By using his friend’s computer, Brian had left a
digital footprint on that computer. The police knew this and had to erase it.
With the prosecutor still reading the Warwick Brown statement, the final sentence is perhaps the
most pertinent of all: “…All data, including the IP address, is held within the
company servers for an indeterminate amount of time…”
This means that the police ought to have been able to obtain the
chatlogs that Brian challenged them to do on 4 June 2008 at Charing Cross
police station.
Brian called the usher from inside the box. He wanted to pass a note
to his solicitor, Angela Shaw, and he gave her Brown’s
omissions – the things he didn’t include in his statement. Shaw passed them to
Bell. Bell did not use them.
At 3.50pm,
the jury was sent home with an instruction to return at 10.15 the following day.
Brian met with his solicitor, Angela Shaw, who brought Dominic Bell with her.
“Brian,” said Bell, launching into a pretence of
still being employed by Brian, “I’m calling one of your former pupils Kirsty McIntyre on Monday at 11am. I want John Callow tomorrow at 2pm and also Michael Bird tomorrow at 2pm. Can you call them and let them know when they’re needed?’
The emphasis is ours: calling witnesses and writing to them is the job
of the defence team, not the defendant. Both Shaw and Bell were neglecting their client.
“I will call you to the stand tomorrow,” Bell continued. I’ll take you through the following
topics: your background, your employment history, your role as counsellor, your
use of other names, the weekend child sexual abuse course that you attended, the Staff Training you did on sexual abuse at Sub19, your personal learning
journal – especially from when the females moved in opposite you up until
Christmas 2007, your use of the internet, how you accessed the internet, what
happened to your laptop, conversations with “Shelley” on 28 January 2008;
chatrooms on Faceparty; MSN chatrooms; your mobile telephone number; and
your entry on 29 January 2008 in your learning journal.”
“I’ll also ask you about further shows by Elizabeth McIntyre on 7 February and 25 February 2008. I’m not
sure yet about whether to use the conversation you had on Faceparty with the ‘girl on 15 May 2008.”
“What do you mean, you’re not sure? You ought to be sure because it’s
a vital date in this entire trial. Yet it hasn’t been mentioned and it should
be. And when are you calling Geoff Bacon? He wants to know when he needs to be
in Court.”
“I’m not sure yet. I am not sure that he will help your case. I think
he may just confuse the jury.”
“That’s bollocks! And haven’t I sacked you? What are you still doing
here and why is the trial still going ahead when I’m unrepresented?”
“Look, Brian, I can help acquit you. You’ll need to explain the
messages you posted on Faceparty about cash for sex. You need to tell the jury
about your arrest on 20 May 2008 by Bexley Police. You need to read from your
personal journal and it’s allowed because it’s a contemporaneous document.
We’ll talk about how it’s all affected you and not seeing your grand-children.”
“You’ll need to tell the jury that you did not masturbate because all
three females said that you did.”
“I didn’t, but what’s that got to do with anything? I’m not on trial
for masturbating. It was alleged exposure and I’m not guilty – they all said
they hadn’t seen my genitals.”
“Well,” Bell lied, “it’s important. It looks bad for you
with all of them claiming that they saw you masturbate.”
“And the fourth girl in that house? Why didn’t you call her?”
“It’s not necessary. She didn’t make a statement.”
“Precisely! That’s why she should have been called.”
“Look, focus
on the trial as it is now. Tell the jury that you did not seek a 14-year-old
girl.”
“Of course I
didn’t. That’s bloody obvious! She never existed and I told the police that 18
months ago. I don’t know why we’re even here!”
“Only answer my questions,” said Bell. “Do not dwell on this, we are well prepared.”
Brian was alert to the danger of the words “only answer my questions”.
As a linguist and a counsellor, he knew that people who have something to hide
usually say such things. This was a court of law and he wanted his story to be
heard – the full, unabridged story, not just a slice of it which could be taken
out of context.
“We’re not well prepared at all. You haven’t done enough research.
Angela hasn’t done enough. It’s crap. The judge has given me nothing. The trial
is flying past. Even the usher told me that she had never seen a trial fly by
so fast!”
“Brian,” said Shaw, “trust Dom. He has consistently said he’ll get an
acquittal based on the fact that you couldn’t possibly have believed a 14-year-old
girl would be on an adult social networking website.”
Brian had heard enough. He said his goodbyes and caught a train to
Geoff Bacon’s house, to update him on the trial and explain to him why he
hadn’t been contacted yet by Bell or Shaw.
Roy Bacon cooked a roast dinner and couldn’t believe
that his son was not being called as a witness. “This stinks, Brian!” he said
with the force that his 83 years could muster.
“Bri,” said Geoffrey over dinner, “they seized my computer on 31 July
2008. If there had been anything inappropriate on it, you and me would have got
rid of it immediately after your arrest on 4 June 2008. We wouldn’t have kept using
it until it was seized 7 weeks after your arrest.”
“We know you’re innocent, Brian,” said Roy. “I’ve got your favourite
ice-cream for pudding.”
The indefatigable Roy gave Brian a lift back to Days Lane, where he
saw a client between 7-8pm. For the purposes of this book we will call her ‘Donna’. She was well-dressed and
well-mannered, 26, and very pretty. She told Brian that her main issue was a fear
of sex and guilt after the act.
It was not lost on Brian that her story was a continuation of his role
with clients at Off Centre.
The hour that passed between them was a beautiful meeting of two human
beings, both suffering in their own way. ‘Donna’ – about the same age as the
three female witnesses from 62 Days Lane - trusted Brian enough to share her
deep, intimate secrets with him, and for Brian, the emotional connection
between him and client was a world away from the evil that was permeating
British justice in Court 4 at Southwark Crown Court.
45
Friday, 18 December 2009
It is in the public domain that there was a severe snowstorm across
London during the night and on the morning of the 18 December 2008. There were
no B13 buses running along Days Lane, so Brian walked to the station. He called
in at the Co-op in Halfway Street on his way and bought a Daily Mail from Fay,
the cheery assistant.
Many trains were cancelled or delayed, but Brian arrived at London
Bridge just after 9am and he bought a hot chocolate at Pret.
He arrived at Court at 9.35am and sat outside Court 4, making notes in
his journal.
At 10.25 prosecutor Forster informed him that Bell would not be in Court until 11.30am. This was
nothing new. Defence counsel had been late every day. What does a barrister say
to his client by arriving late each day to Court?
Brian went to the restaurant on the first floor. He received a call
from Maya Walker and a text offering support.
A few minutes later, his newly-made friend, Mandy Rawsthorne, a fitness and physical
education instructor at Sidcup Adult Education Centre texted him offering support.
In a flurry of texts like the flurry of snow falling across the Thames
outside the Court, Brian received a text from Michael Bird, his former supervising
counsellor at the Community Drug Service in Wallington, Surrey. He was cancelling
his appearance due to the severe snow.
By 10:55, Brian had not heard anything from his friend John Callow. He imagined that Callow
would make his way to Court anyway, even if the trial were to be delayed
because Bell or jurors might be delayed.
Brian made some notes in his court journal. We reproduce them here:
“…POINTS FOR DOMINIC BELL
1.
Geoff Bacon’s computer seized 7 weeks after my arrest – still nothing found
2.
Nothing doctored by GB or Brian on his hard
drive
3.
I MUST mention my own abuse – it is the very essence of my case
4.
I want to mention my arrest and beating in July
this year by four
officers from Bexley Police
5.
What do I say if I can’t remember things?
6.
Do I mention my client last night and her sexual
issues?
7.
What can I take on the stand? Photos of grand- children/ my folder
of certificates/ the seduction of children
book/ my folder?
8.
I only slept 3 hours last night and cried about
my grand-children…”
He was missing his grand-children immensely. And he believed that they
were missing him, too. It has been well documented here that it was common
knowledge that Brian deeply loved his grand-children and that they were always
in his mind. He did not lavish money or presents on them, but he did give them
his time and they knew that he understood them very well and that he was a
‘safe haven’.
At 11:35 DC Julia Godfrey approached Brian and told him that his
barrister would “be here at noon.”
At 11:45, he arrived and told his client that he was going to enter a half-time
submission of no evidence. “If there is no case on Count 1, then the judge will
be forced to discharge this jury on Count 2. But if he rules against me, then I
will have to present your case, you’ll need to go on the stand for about an
hour, hour and a half and then the prosecution will cross-examine you.”
To Brian’s way of thinking (and ours), there was no other possible
outcome than an acquittal and that the trial would be over, he could leave
court and hopefully celebrate Christmas with his grand-children and re-build
the strained relationship with his daughter, who had once told her father that
when he sold his house, he could live with them until he found somewhere
alternative accommodation. Neither his daughter nor her husband had doubted
Brian until the police overwhelmed them with ‘evidence’ that he was a sex
offender. This book will hopefully prove beyond all doubt his innocence in
these matters.
In the
courtroom, the judge rebuked Bell for his lateness.
Bell: I have a submission, your
honour.
Judge: Any
skeleton argument?
Bell: No, only two lines.
In order for the trial to be halted and the jury dismissed, it was the
defence counsel’s responsibility to produce a skeleton argument with numbered
reasons why the trial should be stopped. A two-line submission is completely
unacceptable. Not only was his (former) client’s reputation at stake, but also his
liberty. It is evident that Bell was only ‘going through the motions’. A
barrister who was keen to seek an acquittal for his client would have been up
all night preparing the skeleton argument. He had also had a considerable
amount of time in the morning in which to prepare such an argument.
Detective
Constable Shaun Robbie was recalled.
Bell: Were you still operating in
2008?
Robbie: Yes.
Bell: Do you still have your
notebook with you? I want to ask you about the 15 May 2008. Were you on duty
that day? Were you deployed as “Shelley”?
It should be considered at this point that these questions ought to
have been asked of Robbie when he first appeared on the stand.
Furthermore, he should have been asked to provide his logbooks during the
disclosure process. It was unacceptable that this cross-examination was necessary
at this stage of the trial.
Robbie: (looks at log) No. I did on
8 May 2008, 12 May 2008 and 16 May 2008, but not 15 May 2008.
Notice that Robbie could be saying anything – he has not been
asked by the judge or Bell to show a copy of his alleged logbooks of the
time he spent online to them or to Brian, the defendant. This is unacceptable
practice, too.
Defence counsel being finished with Robbie, the prosecution took an
opportunity to try to further defame Brian.
Forster: How many statements have you
made between 30 June 2008 to 28 January 2009?
Robbie: I made two different
statements.
Forster: Prior to making your
statements what did you consult?
Notice how Forster fails to ask why Robbie made two different statements.
Robbie: I consulted logs, phone
calls, transcripts. I have 10 lines about the defendant from 9 or 10 books.
Forster: Is there a note in your book
about 8 May 2008 Faceparty message?
Robbie: Yes … on 12 May 2008 I
received two messages on Faceparty. I never received one on the
15 May 2008.
This was a tactical manoeuvre by the prosecution to confuse the Court.
Brian had never stated that he had sent a message to ‘Shelly14’ but that the
‘girl’ had sent him a private chat.
It was in this private chat applet that he had said in front of Geoffrey Bacon, “You are a fake! Fuck off!”
Now notice how the judge interjects:
Judge: This is a computer. If a message was sent to you, then there
would be a record.
Robbie: I have no record of that MSN log on 15 May 2008.
Notice how the court-wise Robbie avoids the real question. Brian had maintained
all along that he had received a message from ‘shelly14’ on Faceparty, not on MSN, but Robbie avoids that question and states that there was
no record of a conversation on MSN. Small details like this are
usually most critical. Robbie was perverting the course of justice by not
revealing the whole truth and the information which, we say, he must have been
privy to.
Judge: If it
was sent, it would be held on
computer.
Robbie: If we were both online at
the same time, I could see the message.
Judge: I think you should look
at that computer to see if that message was sent.
Forster: Subject to that check, my
case is closed.
Did you notice the sleight of hand present in that exchange? The judge
states that if a message was sent, there would be a digital footprint of it on
the computer which Brian last used: the one belonging to his friend, Geoffrey
Bacon. A digital footprint was left on that computer which was why
Tunn and Godfrey unlawfully seized it and burnt out the hard
drive before returning it.
The judge appeared to be conducting a fair trial, but he wasn’t – that
computer ought to have been checked many months before the trial ever took
place. The CPS ought to
have conducted that investigation and Dominic Bell most certainly ought to have done. Notice,
too, how the date of 15 May is mentioned but never discussed. And it was not
discussed because it would open a can of worms about police corruption and
criminal behaviour by the police in unlawfully seizing the Bacon computer and
burning out the hard drive.
At 12.25, the jury left the courtroom. There then ensued a most
remarkable debate of what we can only describe as legal nonsense.
Dominic Bell put up the argument that there was no evidence
and no case to answer. “Masturbation in public” he ventured, “is a Common Law
offence of outraging public decency.”
He then read out the offence of outraging public decency. Bell told the judge that the jury needs to be
properly directed.
“Outraging public decency needs to be done in public or private with
at least two people seeing it. If a man stands at his bedroom window
masturbating, the appropriate charge would have been outraging public decency. From
the evidence there is no mention of witnesses seeing the defendant’s genitals.
Katie Prouse said she saw him masturbating.”
This man was supposed to be defending his (former) client robustly. We
believe that this is an appalling piece of dialogue in open court. But it gets
significantly worse (and significantly more farcical) when the judge joins in
the debate.
Judge: The CPS elected
this charge but have they made out a charge in the evidence?
Bell: There is no evidence that he
was displaying his genitals. Is it enough for exposure?
This is a ridiculous interlude in a criminal trial. The fact remains
that the Law states that Brian is innocent of a charge of exposure. This debate
is totally pointless.
Judge: Can I put it more starkly? If man A exposes himself to woman B,
who is blind, then he still has committed an offence. Just because they didn’t
see his penis doesn’t make him Not Guilty.
[Authors’ note: Actually, it
DOES make him not guilty. The law is very clear on exposure: that a man must
expose his genitals and they must be seen and the intent must be to cause alarm
or distress.]
Bell: The Oxford English
Dictionary definition of exposure is publicly displaying one’s genitals.
We have to question why, in a Court of law, defence counsel is
referring to a linguistic definition of exposure when he ought to refer to
Archbold or a
similar publication, which he knows. Why is Loraine-Smith allowing this farce in his courtroom?
Judge: You’re saying that if what he did was not possibly seen, then
it’s intent. There is evidence that he was masturbating.
[Authors’ note: It does not
follow that there was intent. Nor does it follow that Brian ever masturbated.
The female witnesses have not, in our opinion, done themselves any favours.]
Bell: Look at the photograph taken
on 24 May 2008. I invite the judge to
pay regard to the defendant at the window.
Judge: I have evidence from Photo 2. Mr Forster, what do the girls say about
what they saw?
We hope by now that you are incredulous in your reaction to this
dialogue. This scene is costing the public revenue a considerable sum of money.
A Crown Court trial in 2008 was adjudged to cost the public purse at least
£20,000 per day. This present debate – if it should ever have occurred – ought
to have been had before the trial commenced, not at this stage.
Forster: Natalie Ryan says she saw a naked man. From the thighs up and that she could see his genital area.
The CPS would say that
he uncovered himself and took his penis out of his trousers.
The emphasis is ours: Natalie Ryan said that she never saw Brian’s penis. Forster is misrepresenting what was said in Court.
Furthermore, Forster claims here that Brian took his penis out of
his trousers yet the three witnesses claimed that he was naked. Confusion
reigned supreme. Or rather, disinformation.
Bell: Elizabeth McIntyre said, ‘I couldn’t see much of his body. I
could see his arm.’ Katie Prouse said she only saw for 2 or 3 seconds. There is
no proper charge of Outraging Public Decency. There is clearly not enough
evidence.
Judge: I’m against
you. I will tell you why on Monday morning.
At this point, Loraine-Smith left the Court at 12.40pm, saying he would
return at 2.15pm.
With Bell continuing to engage in his pointless legal
debate with the prosecution, Brian left the courtroom at 12:45 and went to the
canteen on the first floor to make more notes.
“…Facts against girls’ evidence (given to Bell at 2pm)
1.
I never have masturbated at my window.
2.
The police dropped that allegation on 20 May
2008.
3.
Motivation – “exposure with intent to upset the onlooker” – why would
I want to upset them?
4.
All 3 witnesses failed to attend court in
February 2009, despite CPS assuring Judge that they would attend
5.
All 3 girls stated that I’m right hand – I’m
left-handed
6.
One girl (Natalie Ryan) said my room was “dark and shadowy” while Elizabeth
McIntyre said “lots of light”
7.
Location of house
(i)
Opposite a church and church hall which is often
used by the community up to
midnight
(ii)
On bus route B13 – buses stop outside my house
every 15-20 minutes. Up to
past midnight. They stop outside
my house in both directions (because of the church)
(iii)
People often stand and wait for the bus directly
outside or
directly opposite my house
8.
If I had done this, why would I tell Maya Walker about
McIntyre’s displays?
9.
McIntyre agreed she had been at her
open-curtained window
late at night with the light on, SEVERAL DAYS
AFTER SHE HAD CALLED THE POLICE.
10.
Maya Walker corroborates this in her evidence – why did you not call her as a
character witness?
11.
The girls’ statements were orchestrated by the
police because of the
language contained in them
12.
Natalie Ryan – “light source not clear enough to see his penis” so how did she see
masturbation? NR lied “she
used to shut both curtains when she was in there”
(i)
See Ellen Stanley’s statement
(ii)
Compare with McIntyre’s own admission that her curtains were open
13.
When is Christine Holloway going to be brought
into court? She was the
4th girl in the house
14.
McIntyre said, “I saw him masturbate for a
second or two.” Not long
enough to tell. “I kept my curtains closed the whole time.” No
she didn’t – see Maya Walker’s statement. Also NR’s
statement. She never mentioned
masturbation when she called the police. She
actually said “I’d forgotten to shut my curtains on 5 May and 17 May 2008.
15.
Katie Prouse – stated she had only seen for 2-3 seconds. “The light
was good”. NR said light was “bad.”
NR said McIntyre was in habit of leaving her curtains open.
16.
Maya Walker saw a show on 18 May 2008, 10 days after McIntyre called the police.
I was seeing MW and
had no need to masturbate over other people.
17.
GOUT – my doctor’s records show that I had gout on 7
May 2008 and it’s painful. Who would
even want to masturbate
when in such pain?
18.
POLICE ACTIVITY – the girls made a complaint 8 May 2008, yet didn’t give
statements until 19/20 May 2008
19.
PHOTOS – the jury has never seen photos at
night. The CPS has outsmarted you by keep showing pictures during the
day. We urgently need to introduce the photos at
night, particularly the one of Callow
standing at my window but it looks like me…”
We believe that this list alone is indicative of a trial that had only
one outcome. Brian is not a lawyer, but neither is he stupid. He knew that all
of these questions ought to have been asked in open court when the females were
on the stand. That they are being asked at this stage is an appalling
indictment of British justice.
At 2pm, Brian handed the above list to his previously dismissed
barrister who was still working on the assumption that he was working for
Brian. They spent time discussing the phrase ‘alarm or distress’, but it was
another pointless debate because Brian had never had any intention of causing
anyone alarm or distress.
At 2.40pm, the CPS attempted to have the reporting restrictions
removed. The judge agreed that they could be lifted. This was yet another
calculated move by the police – they were preparing to further defame an
innocent man.
The jury came in at 2.42pm, with DC Robbie on the stand.
Robbie: I received no further Faceparty chats and no MSN messages on 15 May 2008.
This was clearly perjury. Evidence we have gathered under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 clearly shows that Brian engaged in a
‘conversation’ with the person claiming to be a ‘girl’ on 15 May 2013 – this
has also been corroborated by Geoffrey and Roy Bacon, and even by DC Julia Godfrey
when she interviewed Brian on 4 June 2008 at Charing Cross police station with
DS Tunn and legal representative Marcia Weise present.
A short recess. Bell tells Brian that he would be needed to take
the stand around 4.20pm. John Callow arrived but didn’t get on the stand and so sat
in the public gallery observing the farce.
As the court day drew to a close, Brian was called to the stand by
Dominic Bell. There were a few background
questions which Brian answered honestly and truthfully.
He travelled back to New Eltham with John Callow. Both men went their separate
ways, Callow going home and Brian going to Geoff Bacon’s house to type out some
notes for Angela Shaw, his solicitor.
On the Saturday (19 December) and the Sunday (20 December), Brian
worked with Geoffrey Bacon at the latter’s house in Chislehurst.
December 20, 2009 was his daughter’s 35th birthday and he
did not hear from her. This caused him tremendous emotional pain and this
played into the hands of the police, too. They were out to destroy him, and
when the police undertake a fixated threat on a ‘target’, they will initiate
what amounts to a military operation and disrupt a target’s life as much as
possible. One of the first things they do is try to separate a target from his
family.
On Sunday, December 20, 2009 at 2:42pm, Brian sent the following email
to Angela Shaw, his solicitor from AA
Mirsons. It is reproduced in full
below. But before you read it, consider the stage of the trial. Brian is on the
stand. The trial is drawing to an end. Much of what Brian is asking for below
ought to have occurred months before
this date. Consider when you read the email whether you think Brian was being
set up or not, and whether you believe that Brian received justice:
“…Dear Angela,
I wish to inform
you that I am not happy with the way the trial is going, principally because I
have heard four days of the jury being given misinformation by the police and
the CPS.
Alias of alleged girl:
I believe we have
been hoodwinked by DC Robbie. He has told the jury about ShellyK14 whereas
in fact my communication was with Shelly14. This is an important distinction
but one which I feel the jury, given so much information to process, are
missing. Therefore I believe we need
URGENTLY to be given disclosure around Shelly14 DVDs as well as ShellyK14 DVDs.
It is my belief the jury and the judge are being misled.
Trial at Woolwich:
I have information
that one of the three young women did actually attend the area on the day of
the trial, and therefore the trial should have gone ahead. Tim Forster told the judge on Friday 30th January that all
his witnesses were ready and gave assurances to Judge Charles Byers that they would be present on Monday 2nd February
2009. I believe we need to get the records of Katie Prouse’s expenses from Plymouth to
London (hotel and travel expenses) because DC Saib told Tim
Forster on 2nd February that “the girl is in a hotel
nearby”. Therefore, I believe that the CPS are guilty of manipulating the court process.
Photographs:
I believe we need
to call the police photographer, Peter Thompson of Bexleyheath Police Station,
to tell the jury why he took photographs during the day when all the alleged
actions took place at night in the dark. We need to ask whether he cropped the
photos, and whether he used a zoom lens.
The only light in the room was hanging
towards the back of the room, and therefore anybody standing at the window
would have been in silhouette.
MSN Server Logs:
It could be that
MSN server logs could provide us with important information
to substantiate my claim that there was a fourth conversation which the police
have failed to produce to the jury. I believe we should try to get the trial
stopped until we get this information.
DVDs:
Although the girl’s
online sessions are allegedly being videoed, does the screen show the date and
time?
My own abuse:
I was incensed on
Friday when the judge alluded to the fact that just because I had only been a
paid counsellor for six months I did not have sufficient objectivity around the
way in which Off Centre were dealing with the issue of Child Sexual Abuse. I believe, therefore, that
it is imperative that my own CSA is mentioned in court in order to give the
jury an understanding that I have lived with this for fifty years and done an
incredible amount of research on CSA in that time and therefore suggesting I
only have six months’ experience is folly when in reality I have 50 years’
experience.
Slowing the trial down:
I firmly believe that
we should slow the trial down; I have as I said had a breakdown and am on two
different types of medication for that. I feel this case could be lost simply
due to the fact of the haste in which the judge is rushing this case through
before Christmas, and I do not wish to be found guilty simply because there was
not enough time to examine all of the facts.
Susie Orbach article:
I believe that I
should read out this article in full because it will give the jury a greater
understanding of the role of a counsellor when dealing with clients who present
with sexual issues.
Christiane Sanderson:
She is a leading
light and expert witness on CSA, and for this reason I believe we should read
out the DSM-IV criteria with aetiology on histrionic personality disorder
written by her.
Internet Reporting:
Whilst this trial
is ongoing there is still a report on the internet about it and I feel that
this will still prejudice the jury because any of them can go home and type in
my name into Google and they will find the story.
I believe,
therefore, that the trial should not be going ahead all the time that story
remains on line. Furthermore in this article which appears to have come from
Scotland Yard, it says quite categorically
that I was engaging in an internet chat room before moving to MSN. Detective Robbie claims there was no such conversation in an
internet chat room.
Kind regards…”
The barristers and solicitors amongst our readers will examine this
email and probably recoil in horror at the things that Brian was asking his
solicitor for and the incredibly large number of abuses of process that
occurred during this trial. As for our lay readers, we still believe that you
will be asking yourself how on earth a trial in a Crown Court could possibly be
so badly organised and how witnesses were not called or evidence adduced in
Court.
Roy Bacon cooked the three men a wonderful roast dinner
with lashings of beef gravy and perfectly-risen Yorkshire puddings. For
dessert, there was warm apple pie and ice cream, Brian’s favourite.
Over the evening meal the three men discussed the case and it occurred
to Brian that he needed to email Angela Shaw again and therefore, after the filling meal,
Brian and Geoffrey went to the latter’s bedroom and Brian typed out the email
below.
“…Dear Angela
A friend of mine
(who is still a member on Faceparty.com) has just performed a
test for me which shows that it is possible to log in to the same account at
least twice on the same computer. This
means - I would suggest - that the police can log in as Shelly14 and be “good”
and also log into Shelley14 and “be naughty” - all on the same computer (or
even two different computers).
I still believe
that the CPS should
have disclosed to us ALL the disks for “Shelly14” and “Shelly-k14” for the
period December 2007 - May 2008. THIS
HAS NOT BEEN DONE, and I believe that it’s worth Dominic asking the judge to
stop the case because of this lack of disclosure WHICH IS CRUCIAL TO MY CASE.
My friend Peter has
also sent me a text message (which I’ve kept on my phone to show proof to
Dominic) that there are at least 50 chatrooms on Faceparty at any one time, and NOT the “only 10” that DC
Robbie claimed - thus he directly lied to the judge,
because it was the judge who asked the question about how many chatrooms there
were on Faceparty. FOR THIS REASON, I BELIEVE
THAT WE NEED TO STOP THE TRIAL NOW AND PROVE TO THE JUDGE THAT DC ROBBIE LIED
TO HIM IN THE COURSE OF HIS EVIDENCE.
Additional Information you need to know
1) Last Friday at
10.22pm, I received a text from an unknown number saying that they had added me
to Hotmail and that they would ‘go on webcam if you do’.
The general
consensus amongst my friends is that this is a police attempt to entrap me, but
we cannot prove this because we do not know who the number belongs to. Whoever
it is, they could not get my mobile number because only a few trusted people
have that number, so it must be the police who are monitoring me.
2) Within the past
month, I contacted my local police and told them I had been the victim of
police corruption. They are legally
bound to contact me within 3 days, but they did not contact me until I went
into Sidcup police station again the following week. They have still done
nothing.
3) We need to
obtain the MSN server logs from MSN - these should have a
record of the conversation that I know took place (and Mr Geoff Bacon confirmed
in his statement), but the police said this never took place. Surely we need to halt the trial on this lack
of disclosure too?
Kind regards…”
We believe that these two emails show not only an abuse of process and
evidence of a miscarriage of justice, but also a trial the outcome of which had already been planned. All of the evidence
that has been made available to us supports this statement.
The parallels with Brian’s treatment and unlawful dismissal by Lambeth
Council are evident.
46
Monday 21 December 2009
Once Brian arrived at court, he sought out Dominic Bell to discuss the emails he had sent to Angela Shaw
which he had copied the barrister in to. But the barrister was nowhere to be
seen. Bell ought to have sought the evidence Brian was
asking for months before the trial.
We believe that this is an appalling case to write about. Not only has
the trial been stage-managed from the start, but a man’s life and reputation
has been destroyed in the name of protecting the real culprits. Remember the words of Marcia Weise – “You have out-stung an illegal sting
operation and they will be out to get you!”
It is clear from Brian’s emails that both Angela Shaw and Dominic Bell failed to report crimes. They had a duty to
report the crimes that Brian outlined in these emails – including perjury and
perverting the course of justice.
To Bell, Brian mentioned two further
points that he had not sent to Angela Shaw:
(i)
Certificate for working with Survivors of Abuse
2-3 February 2008 – the jury needs to see this
(ii) page
from Maya Walker’s work diary showing I took
training (not just disseminated information re training) on Child Sexual Abuse on 28 March 2008
Forster arrived outside Court 4 at 11:05 and DC Julia
Godfrey arrived at 11:15. Brian sat outside court all alone.
He messaged a few friends and supporters. There was still no sign of Bell.
Forster did not look very happy. Some of his bounce
had gone. He was speaking to Godfrey with the intention of cross-examining Brian.
At 11:20, Bell arrived. Brian asked to speak with him but he
said that it was not possible, but that he would raise the issues of Brian’s
emails with the judge. If this is true, then the fact the judge did not act
upon the claims of perjury, perverting the course of justice and demonstrable
police corruption means that he is culpable.
At 11:30, Nicholas Loraine-Smith entered the Court and delivered his comments
about why he had decided that the trial should continue, even though the
females all stated that they had never seen Brian’s genitals (and thus exposure
could not have taken place.) Read carefully how Loraine-Smith tries to justify continuing with a trial whose
outcome had already been decided: “…I said on Friday that I would give my
reasons why the trial will continue. In the case of exposure, Elizabeth McIntyre said she saw a naked man masturbating and
therefore the charge remains. The jury is one short, so we will wait until the
juror arrives before continuing further…”
Bell: We’ve put Mr Pead’s original
Personal Learning Journal into the Court file. I am going to give it to the jury
and let them read it.
Forster: I agree that the jury can
have it.
We hope that you will have seen that Brian was dealt an unlawful and
fatal blow. Loraine-Smith had no legal
reason to continue with the trial. The law could not be clearer. The Indictment
read that Brian had exposed himself to three females. The three females all
stated that they had not, after all, seen his genitals. Whether he was or was
not masturbating (and he wasn’t) does not enter into the legal argument. The trial should have ceased at this point and the
jury dismissed. It was then left to the CPS to decide whether they would initiate a new
trial in the new year without the
Joined exposure case which, as we have shown, had been Joined merely to
prejudice Brian (as Judge Charles Byers had stated in February 2009).
Brian was on the stand throughout this day of the trial. He knew that
something was wrong when Bell failed to draw the jury’s attention to the
police perjury that had been brought to his attention. Bell also rushed through his examination of Brian’s
version of events.
When Forster began his cross-examination, Brian knew within
minutes that the purpose of his being on the stand was simply to provide as
much information to the prosecution as they could manage to squeeze from him.
It was evident that Forster was trawling for information about the
Faceparty website and exactly what Brian knew about the
liquidation. Had the trial been genuine,
it would have emerged that DC Godfrey had committed perjury – just as Forster had misled the court – by claiming that the
website was no longer functional: as we have seen, the Faceparty website had continued to trade even after the company behind the website had
liquidated. It is still trading at the time of publication.
But Brian’s time on the stand was not over. He would be there again
the next morning.
No comments:
Post a Comment