47
Tuesday 22 December 2009
At 9:20am, Brian went to the General Office to photocopy proof that he
had encountered the ‘girl’ on Faceparty before they chatted on MSN – this was something that DC Robbie had lied about on oath. Brian offered to pay for the photocopies, but
an extremely kind man refused to take Brian’s money.
He arrived outside Court 4 at 9.30am. He went to see Jacqui the Court
usher to ask about the protocol needed for him to give the Judge the photocopied
sheets.
At 9:45 Brian finally made contact with Jacqui and handed her the
vital photocopied evidence. She said to him that the judge might reject it, but
he was pleased that he had handed it in according to the proper protocol.
At 9.50, Loraine-Smith discussed Brian’s paperwork with Bell.
At 10.00, Forster continued to cross-examine Brian. It became
both farcical and unnecessary when Forster asked Brian the size of his penis! Brian, of
course, refused to answer, turned to Loraine-Smith and asked, “Are you going to allow that
comment in your Court?” and the Judge mildly rebuked Forster in a pretence that
the trial was genuine.
Before he left the witness stand, Brian sought permission from the
judge to show the jury the newspaper report from the Bexley Times dated 7 May
2009 which showed that there had been a two-stage step in the communications
between Brian and the ‘girl’. DC Robbie denied this. We say that he perjured himself.
Brian had photocopied enough sheets for each jury member, the
prosecutor, Bell and the judge. “I want to show the jury this
document because it is incontrovertible evidence that DC Robbie committed perjury in this court.”
“I’m not allowing it.”
“Why?”
“It’s my Court and I’m not allowing it because it’s late evidence.
Carry on Mr Forster.”
And in that moment, Brian knew that something was dreadfully wrong
with this masquerade of a trial. He knew enough about the law to know that the
judge ought to have ensured that Brian’s allegations of perjury and police
corruption were reported to Scotland Yard’s professional standards
department.
At 10:50 Kirsty McIntyre was called as a character witness. She was 30
years of age and had first met Brian at the age of 13 when she was in his
English class. They got along well.
When Brian organised an adventure holiday to an outdoor pursuit centre
in Wales, Kirsty elected to go.
After she left school at 16, she worked in London and eventually found
herself working as a para-legal at British American Tobacco. Her main work was
in intellectual property. One evening, they met on a train from London to New
Eltham, where Kirsty was visiting her parents. They swapped mobile phone
numbers and met for a drink and a catch-up with other former pupils. There was
no hint of any romance or sexual liaison. Brian simply respected Kirsty as a
genuinely nice person with mature views on the world. When Brian told her about
the impending court cases, she could not believe the allegations and readily
agreed to be a character witness.
Forster: Did he ever tutor you at school?
McIntyre: Yes.
Forster: Did he ever tutor you at his house?
McIntyre: No.
Forster: How well do you know him?
McIntyre: Pretty well, really.
He was my English teacher for two years and
I went on several school holidays which he also went on.
Forster: Do you know what makes him tick sexually?
McIntyre: Well, I know that I
do not believe these allegations against him
for one minute. He would have had many opportunities to commit such crimes if he was that way
inclined, but there were
never any such allegations against him throughout his career.
Forster: Has he told you about the precise details of the cases?
McIntyre: Yes, of course. Like
I said, I do not believe he is guilty of them
at all.
Bell went through the motions and nothing of great
significance was contributed through his line of questioning.
Bell then called John Callow, a friend of Brian’s. They
had met on a counselling course at the Sidcup Adult Education centre. They had
been on holiday to Malta and also to the Forest of Dean. They were able to talk about
most things on a mature emotional level.
At 11:00,
Callow swore an oath.
Bell again went through the motions, with basic
questions:
Bell: What is your occupation?
Callow: I’m a mental health manager. I formerly
worked at British Telecom
and Cable and Wireless.
Bell: How did you meet?
Callow: We met on a training course for
counsellors.
Bell: How would you describe his character?
Callow: Brian is very honest and has great
integrity.
Bell then turned his examination to Exhibit 3, the
1:100 scale diagram that Callow had drawn. Callow explained the tools that he
had used to take the measurements.
Bell’s examination had added
little to the trial, other than to say that – in his opinion – Brian is a very
honest man with great integrity. This description of Brian mirrors those of
Graham Dean, David Cox and various neighbours and colleagues, all of whom had
known Brian over many years (see below).
Forster then cross-examined the witness. The
prosecutor adopted an arrogant approach to his questioning.
Forster: I’m suggesting your measurements are wrong.
Callow: Not at all. Let’s take the jury go to Mr
Pead’s house and check
the measurements.
Callow had brought his measuring wheel into the courtroom because he
predicted that the prosecution would try to belittle him and his drawing
abilities, but Callow more than held his own against the prosecutor before
leaving the stand and moving to the public gallery. This was a critical move by
Callow, for reasons we will discuss later.
There was a fifteen-minute break.
Upon resuming, Bell informed the prosecution that he would read
out several other character references in favour of Brian, but Forster refused to allow these to be read out because
they were unsigned. Yet he had based the entire case on unsigned statements
from the police and prosecution witnesses.
One such statement was from Graham Dean, a teacher at the Priory
School in Orpington, Kent:
“...My name is Graham Dean and I am 54 years of
age and have been a teacher for the past 24 years and am currently Head of
Year, a post held now for 7 years.
I have known Mr Brian Pead for approximately
26 years meeting at Avery Hill Teacher Training College. We were introduced by
another student who shared the same Hall of Residence with Brian.
Brian was very helpful in my settling into
the Halls of Residence.
After we had both left college I spent some
time - at least nine months sharing a flat with him. During this period,
Sorrell (sic), Brian's daughter, would often visit and he would help her with
her homework.
On a number of occasions she would stay over
and if I had been out for the evening would come home and find him sleeping on
the lounge ‘put you up’ whilst she had his bedroom. Brian was a devoted father
and very proud of her.
Once I eventually moved into my own home
Brian gave up time to help with the construction of a garage and conservatory.
Brian also came on at least one of our
school outdoor weekends away when students were introduced to climbing and
caving. The school has its own outdoor centre and I had no hesitation in
inviting Brian along.
Brian, myself and other colleagues from my
school also enjoyed holidays in Spain and on the isle of Aran (sic). Brian was
and still is a person who generally gets on well with whoever he meets. He is
articulate and good company.
Throughout our friendship I have never had
any concerns about him around young children or minors. Until recently I also
got the impression he was a proud grandfather taking an active interest in his
grandchildren’s development. That relationship was put under considerable
strain by the allegations.
I have always found Brian to be
philosophical about life and always looking for ways to improve his ‘lot’.
Brian has always shown dedication to any project he has taken on - not always
successfully - but always willing to learn from the experience. He will pick
himself up and try something else. I have always admired his tenacity and zest
for life.
As part of this he was also training to be a
counsellor, a role I felt he would have had many attributes for.
Brian has always shown an interest in people
and as far as I am concerned has always been very open about his own life with
all its ups and downs.
I have had no hesitation in inviting him to
social events where young people are to be present. In fact no such thoughts of
child protection issues have passed through my mind. From what Brian has
explained about the circumstances of the allegations the whole thing appears
bizarre and ludicrous...”
Notice how Graham Dean, an extremely experienced teacher who had known
Brian for a quarter of a century or more, had no hesitation in saying that, not
only did he think Brian presented no child protection issues whatsoever, but
also that the allegations against him were ‘bizarre and ludicrous’.
A Lee Green firefighter, David Cox, also wrote glowingly of his
experience of Brian:
“...Name: Mr David Cox
Occupation: Firefighter
I first met Mr Pead through my father some
17 years ago. My father was looking for an English Tutor, and saw Mr Pead's
advert My wife was thinking of writing a book, and my father put us on to Mr
Pead to seek his advice.
I later joined a local darts team, of which
both my father and Mr Pead were members. Mr Pead and I became friends during
this time before the team disbanded, some 7 years later.
During the ’90s, I was offered an investment
opportunity in a new company being set up by Mr Pead and his then partner, Ms
Armin. I agreed and we worked together on this project for two years but,
unfortunately, the company went into Liquidation. Since then, Mr Pead and I
kept in touch, but had not met on a regular basis until last May, when I
commenced work on a new-build in his vicinity, and offered him work at various
stages of the project.
In all the time that I have known Mr Pead,
both socially and professionally, he has always conducted himself with the
utmost integrity. He has never been underhand in his dealings with either his
colleagues or business associates, and at no time has anything in his speech,
manner or action ever given me cause for concern with regard to either his
trustworthiness or the direction of his moral compass.
Regarding the charges levelled against Mr
Pead, I cannot give them credence, as I do not believe Mr Pead would ever
knowingly consider such an act. He has always been a very sociable individual
who has been a member of the local Round Table, and is now a qualified Councillor
(sic). He has been a teacher for many years, and to the best of my knowledge
has never had his conduct with any of his pupils, clients or members of the public
bought into question.
This is obviously a very distressing time
for Mr Pead. Since disclosing this situation to me, he has become much more
reserved in my company, and it is obvious to me that this whole situation has taken
its toll. I trust that this matter will soon be resolved to the satisfaction of
all concerned.
Yours
David Cox...”
These two men had a combined
knowledge of more than 40 years of being around Brian. His neighbours had also
been around him for many years. Not one single person had any doubts about his
sexual proclivities. Neither Graham Dean nor David Cox was written to by either
Angela Shaw or Dominic Bell. They were not called as witnesses. You might like
to ask yourself why.
Loraine-Smith then provided a summary of the cases prior to
the closing speeches. But notice how he strays from the legal definition of
exposure and creates the appearance
of a case. This trial should have ceased by now – notice how he tries to
justify the corruption which is taking place in his court.
“...My job is to
provide the jury with points of law. The Crown does not have to prove it.
Count 1.
Did the defendant intend others to see
him masturbate?
Did he intend to cause alarm and distress?
Count 2.
The Crown are calling
this an attempt. You need to be sure he did more than just an attempt. The
contact was sexual. She was under 16. The defendant claims his interests were
more professional than sexual. This is not a personality contest. You don’t
have to like him.
Analyse what the
Crown has to prove. I’m hoping the closing speeches will be over by lunch...”
Did you notice the sleight of hand? In just a few words, Loraine-Smith has claimed that the CPS does not have to prove Brian’s guilt – in any court case, the onus is always on
the Crown to prove guilt.
Did you notice how the judge makes a comment – “Did the defendant
intend others to see him masturbate?” – as if the masturbation was a real event. In any event, the charge was
for exposure, not for any other public order offence. Besides, how could the
females be considered bona fide
witnesses when their testimony in court did not match the unsigned statements
they allegedly made to the police and for which the Computer-Aided Despatch
(CAD) reports had never been
produced?
And did you notice how Loraine-Smith refers to the ‘girl’ as if she were a real person? We have shown earlier that
for Brian - or any other defendant to be guilty of this crime - then there has to be a real person.
Did you also notice how Loraine-Smith introduces some NLP – neuro-linguistic
programming - by saying “This is not a personality contest. You don’t have to
like him”?
The judge has sown a seed in the minds of the jurors. By now, one or
two (or more) of the jurors who are highly susceptible to suggestion will now
be thinking, “I don’t like the defendant.”
Notice, too, how the Judge is racing through the trial – “I’m hoping
the closing speeches will be over by lunch.”
What possible credible reason can he have for hoping the closing
speeches will be over by lunch? We refer you to the words of Marcia Weise on 4 June 2008 – “You have out-stung the
police sting operation and they will be
out to get you.”
The obsequious Timothy Forster stated that his closing speech would take
twenty minutes. Bell offered no such assurance.
Defence counsel then called Michael Bird. Notice the strange order of
events in this case.
As Michael Bird took to the witness stand, John Callow entered the public gallery. This was a crucial
move – the significance of which will be made known in a later chapter.
Bird: I was Brian’s counselling supervisor at the Community Drug Service South London (CDSSL) in Wallington, Surrey.
I have been a
counsellor for more than 10 years. I’ve known Brian
for 3 years. I initially interviewed him for the role of volunteer counsellor at CDSSL.
He impressed
me greatly at interview. His knowledge of counselling
and of people was impressive. His ability to get along with people was remarkable.
Our clients
were problematic, highly complex and challenging.
I would say that around 70-75% have an underlying
cause of sexual issues.
Bell: Do you have to confront the Child Sexual Abuse if clients tell
you about it?
Bird: Usually, yes.
And in less than five minutes, the examination of Michael Bird was complete. Prior to the examination in
Court, Bell had discussed all of the likely questions he
would ask.
The reality was that Bell kept his line of questioning to such a narrow
range that a full picture of Brian and his qualities did not get spoken about
in Court at all.
After the trial, Michael Bird complained about Bell and a miscarriage of justice to the Bar Standards
Council and later to the Criminal Cases Review
Commission.
Once the witness has been examined, it is left up to the ‘opposition’
as to whether they want to cross-examine the witness. Forster chose not to. He knew that Bird could only add to Brian’s credibility, not
detract from it and so he refrained from any further cross-examination.
At this point, Bell was on his feet and said, “No indecent photos were
found on his computers by the police after forensic examination.”
Loraine-Smith interjected with, “I want the closing speeches.”
Forster got to his feet and began his closing speech.
We reproduce a précised version of the most salient points below with our emphasis
added. We will discuss the emphases after the closing prosecution speech. When
reading the speech, please remember that the jury has not been sworn in
properly, rendering the trial a nullity.
“… There
are two allegations. You may return different verdicts. The two allegations are different.
Count
1: Are they trustworthy girls?
Count
2: The defendant said that the officers are lying.
The
defendant claims he was not the watcher of the girls, but was being watched. Elizabeth
McIntyre said she found the experience upsetting. The
defendant said it was a sham and that she was ‘putting on shows’ for someone. Ms McIntyre says she received a
creepy letter.
The defendant has an odd mind.
In
his Personal Learning Journal, he spoke about ‘dark nights of the soul’.
The defendant is lonely and obsessed.
Did
the girls call the police for no reason at all?
No matter what the measurements say,
the girls say they saw him.
We
now come to Count 2.
Nowhere in the 3 conversations is there
any reference to any chatroom.
The
defendant says he saw her in a chatroom on 28 January 2008. He cannot run away from the transcripts.
He claims he is a respectable man. He claims he is not the man in his own
private world. He claims he was researching into Child Sexual Abuse as a counsellor and he claims he was online
doing research.
Was
he running an escort agency?
No-one
forced him to go online.
No-one
forced him to answer the girl’s initial contact.
No-one
forced him to offer money for sex.
He
called the number – no-one forced him to call it.
There
is significant overlap in counts 1 and 2.
On
May 7, the defendant would have you believe he was not masturbating.
On
May 8, there was a flurry of messages on Faceparty and it
is impossible to tell the difference
between genuine contact and smoking out.
Notice
how both offences are made remotely.
The defendant doesn’t actually meet up with
the girl.
He
says it is a blur in which he is the victim. He had crossed the line.
The defendant is guilty of both charges…”
That was, in essence, the closing speech by Forster. We will now analyse its
content in the light of the facts we know and have researched and seen bona fide evidence for.
Forster claimed: “The
two allegations are different.” We agree. And because the two allegations
were different, they should never have been Joined. Misjoinder results in a
nullity (rule 9 of the Indictment Rules
1971.)
Forster claimed: “The
defendant said that the officers are lying.”
Not only did Brian say that the police had perjured themselves at
Court, but he had the evidence. Yet his defence team had not made this evidence
known to the Court – which is their first duty – and nor had the prosecution
made all of the available evidence (the unused material) known to the defence
and the Court, and nor did Loraine-Smith.
Forster claimed: “Elizabeth
McIntyre was putting on shows.”
In a statement made by Maya Walker, she confirmed that on 18 May
2008, she had been present when Elizabeth McIntyre was ‘putting on a show’ in her bedroom to the
front of the house at 62 Days Lane. This ‘show’ was 10 days after she had made a call to the police
about a ‘man watching her’.
Forster claimed: “The
defendant has an odd mind.”
As authors who have met Brian and spent a great deal of time in his
company, we can say that we agree that he has ‘an odd mind’. However, we would
argue that he is at times bordering on genius and he often sees the things most
people would miss and not even know that they had missed them. He is alert,
intuitive, compassionate and sensitive. He is determined, enthusiastic and a
man who loves his family more than anything else in life. We believe that his
qualities make him a personal threat to the police and the judiciary. We accept
(because bona fide evidence exists to
prove it) that up until the age of 55 he had not had any issues with the law,
but – once he had uncovered police corruption and also corruption at Lambeth
Council – his
world was suddenly thrown into turmoil. We believe that this is far too much of
a coincidence.
We have spoken with people who find him difficult – indeed, we believe
that his own daughter has often referred to him as such. However, it appears to
us that he is most often referred to as difficult by people who try to
manipulate him and when he resists he is called difficult or obtuse.
His ‘superior intelligence’ (as referred to by a psychologist at the
age of 5) means that he can identify the bigger picture as well as understand
the detail. His determination and ability to undertake vast research is
evidenced by the fact that he is the only man in the world who undertook the
entire historical record of Liverpool Football Club from 1892.
Forster claimed: “The
defendant is lonely and obsessed.”
By his own admission, Forster is an ‘obsessive’. What does it mean in
reality? Was Brian obsessed with uncovering the complete record of Liverpool
FC? Yes he was, and so what? He produced an invaluable record which has brought
pleasure to thousands of people. Bill Shankly has been described as
‘obsessive’. Monty Roberts, the famous ‘horse whisperer’ has also been
similarly described. Passion borders on obsessiveness – and it often changes
the world, or at the very least it can change people’s perceptions of the
world. Is Brian obsessive about justice? Yes he is – just like Nelson Mandela,
Emmeline Pankhurst, Christine Collins, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and a
whole host of others. Invariably they, too, have been described as ‘obsessive’.
Anyone who threatens the law is often referred to as ‘obsessive’ and the
authorities will try to ‘nut them off’ – a colloquialism meaning to get someone
sectioned as mentally ill.
As we have seen, Brian was leading a full life and, despite living
alone – by choice – he was not lonely. His life was taken up with his daughter
and grand-children, refurbishing his house, socialising with friends, his
lover, his job and his continued research into various projects and planning
books on differing subjects.
Forster claimed: “No
matter what the measurements say, the girls say they saw him.”
The measurements taken to a professional standard by John Callow proved that what the females claimed had
happened could not have happened. It
is therefore wholly improper for Forster to try to disregard the impossibility of the
allegations based on scientific and mathematical evidence. Besides, where was
the fourth witness who also lived in the house? And hadn’t Ellen Stanley and Glen Meeking both stated that they thought the
females were operating a brothel from 62 Days Lane? This would have given them
significant reasons to do a deal with Bexley Police in making false allegations against Brian in
exchange for not being prosecuted for any possible misdemeanours they had
perpetrated themselves.
Forster claimed: “Nowhere
in the 3 conversations is there any reference to any chatroom.”
This was a blatant attempt by Forster to mislead the Court again – there were five
conversations, not three, and Forster knew this. We know that he knew this because this
information was contained in the unused material which he failed to pass on to
Brian’s defence team (and who failed to ask for it). Thus Forster knew all along that Brian was innocent. The
key fact here is the vital conversation on 15 May 2008 that Brian had with ‘the
girl’ online when using Geoffrey Bacon’s computer.
Forster claimed: “He
cannot run away from the transcripts.”
Brian has never tried to run away from the transcripts – quite the
reverse, in fact. It was the CPS and the police who were running away from the
transcripts by failing to show the Court that there were five conversations in total. Brian wanted all five entered into Court because they proved his
innocence beyond all reasonable doubt.
Forster claimed: “On May 8, there was a flurry of
messages on Faceparty and it is impossible to tell the difference between genuine contact and smoking out.”
This was a striking admission by Forster because it meant that that the CPS and the police actually gave credence to the
fact that Brian had been saying for months that his sole objective in chatting
with ‘the girl’ was to ‘smoke her out’ as a prospective sex offender. It also
shows the reasonable doubt that existed and such doubt would mean that a jury
must acquit the defendant.
Forster claimed: “The
defendant doesn’t actually meet up with the girl.”
Of course Brian did not meet ‘the girl’ because (i) she did not exist
(ii) Brian knew this and (iii) he never intended to meet this person in any
event.
However, by stating that Brian did not actually meet the girl, he
cannot be guilty of incitement or even attempted incitement because in order to
incite someone a person has to know they are capable of committing the crime.
Forster claimed: “He
had crossed the line.”
Brian had clearly not crossed the line. In the case of Tony Campbell,
he had prepared (as we have seen in an earlier chapter) to rob a post office,
having written out a note demanding money, driven to a post office and obtained
an imitation gun. However, he stopped one yard short of entering the building
and won his appeal against conviction because he had done nothing more than
merely preparatory.
Brian had crossed no line. He did not meet the ‘girl’. He did not call
‘her’. He did not text ‘her’. No money changed hands. In fact, ‘she’ did not –
as we know – even exist, so he could not possibly have crossed any line.
Forster claimed: “The
defendant is guilty of both charges…”
The prosecutor has to try to convince a jury of a defendant’s guilt –
that is his or her role in Court. However, Forster knew that Brian was guilty of neither charge.
The prosecution had finished. It had thrown all that it could at Brian
and it is evident that there was nothing of substance in any of it.
It follows that it was now the turn of the defence counsel to close
his speech. Remember that Brian had technically sacked him two days previously.
You are invited to read this closing speech by Dominic Bell very carefully and ask yourself “Do I really
believe that this man is fighting on his client’s behalf? Is the language he is
using really helping Brian? What do I, as a reader, know that Bell also knows but hasn’t informed the Court of?’
No doubt you will have questions of your own.
We adopt the same procedure here as we did with the prosecution’s
closing speech above: we reproduce it with our emphases, but refrain from
discussing or commenting upon the emphases until after the closing speech by Bell:
“...The females
claim that the defendant is a dirty old
man. We are in a court of law, not
morals. He didn’t expect to be arrested on 20 May 2008 but he was. He was
also arrested on 4 June 2008 with a film crew in tow.
The police went
through his house with a fine-tooth comb ... every CD and every computer ... he
was not expecting either arrest. He had not ‘got rid of his laptop’ because he
was hiding anything, but because it was no longer working and would cost more
to repair than to replace. He had informed friends and his lover, Maya Walker.
Everything was laid bare before the
police to be seen.
He had five
separate interviews and answered all their questions fully and frankly and told
them he had been investigating Faceparty.
In the police
interviews, he had been asked several intimate questions ... this was a man who
had never been in trouble before.
He went into the
witness box and the Prosecutor cross-examined him. He was in the box for hours.
He was asked many intimate questions
about his personal life and his sexual life.
He entered the witness box at 2.40 but was
not asked a question until 4.15 on Count 1 and not until 4.20 on Count 2.
[To the jury]
Imagine how you would feel if you had to enter the witness box and answer all
these personal and intimate questions.
I’m proud of the British legal system. I
cannot think of a better system than a jury. This is not a game. It’s not fun.
This is as serious as it comes. [Authors’ note: Dominic Bell knew that the jury had not been sworn in properly in
accordance with the law.]
You need to
separate the wheat from the chaff. Focus on the real issues and/ or the
evidence. These allegations are
extremely serious for the defendant.
He has already told
you of the damaging effect this has had on his life. The word ‘paedophile’ has been mentioned. The defendant is being
accused of being a paedophile.
On the indictment
for Exposure ... he said he had not been masturbating at his bedroom window. You have to cross-refer the three girls’
statements.
Elizabeth McIntyre reacted against the defendant’s case against
her. I chose not to upset her further in my cross-examination of her.
I asked her, “You
have been putting on some shows, have you not?” and if the defendant’s evidence
had been wholly wrong, she would have replied, “How dare you?”
You may conclude
that he was, in fact, masturbating, but that’s not the charge. The Common Law
would be for Outraging Public Decency, but the CPS charged him with exposure and the witnesses
all stated that they did not see his genitals.
The CPS have not laid out that charge.
If you examine the geography of that
bedroom, it is unlikely that he intentionally exposed his genitals.
On Count 2, you
would have to believe that the defendant reasonably believed the girl to be 14.
You may conclude that he was trying to
procure some sort of sexual act.
The defendant said he had communicated with
the girl on Faceparty and
then moved to MSN.
If we take a snapshot
of the defendant’s life on 4 June 2008 we see many things.
Even
if he was, did he know that Shelley14 was 14?
You have to separate the wheat from
the chaff.
The CPS are
seeking to paint before you a picture of the defendant as an old man with an
unhealthy interest in younger women.
You have been given
the relevant extracts that he wrote in his Personal Learning Journal (PLJ).
He
gave the PLJ to
me more than a month ago.
You have the CPS transcripts in front of you.
This PLJ is a crucial document. Focus on the provenance of
the PLJ. Look at the detail in the
PLJ.
DS Tunn said
that in a covert operation the police can employ a lie.
On 2 June 2008, on
page 93 the defendant sets out details about the stop and search that DS Tunn agreed happened.
On page 97, the defendant
sets out details that Tunn agreed.
How could the
defendant know that his PLJ would one day end up in Court? He could not
have known.
The CPS say, “You have been rumbled ... you knew you
were going to be arrested and you got rid of your laptop and we suspect that there was child pornography
on it.”
You need to
consider the defendant’s behaviour.
Faceparty. Evidence is available from Faceparty. The defendant challenged DS
Tunn in his interview to obtain the chatlogs and
Tunn told you that he failed to obtain them. The defendant didn’t know the witness would
be in Australia or that Faceparty had been liquidated.
The defendant said
that DC Robbie corruptly went into a chatroom on Faceparty as a 14-year-old. Robbie denied it.
I wanted to ask Warwick Brown about the identity of this girl, but he was
unavailable.
The most important
thing to remember is that he could have said, “I’m not guilty – they can’t
prove it.”
Look at the
defendant’s behaviour after his arrest: His interviews are very important. He
gave honest, truthful answers. Did he expose his genitals? You cannot deny that
shows were going on. Was he exposing
himself deliberately? Not Outraging Public Decency. Even if he had exposed
himself, it would have been under the windowsill.
Finally, there is the character evidence.
We heard from Kirsty McIntyre, an attractive young woman whom he
taught between the ages of 14 and 16. She said that the defendant had given her
1-to-1 tutoring. She is a paralegal for a large corporation. “I have never felt
uncomfortable around the defendant.” The CPS say the defendant has an obsession with teenage
girls.
Michael Bird spoke highly of the defendant.
If the CPS are right, that the defendant knew she was 14
and that he was trying to procure sexual favours, you would have to assume that she was real.
It could not have
happened because he gave her false numbers – why would he do that if he really
thought ‘she’ were genuine?
Why did he not
cyber-stalk her and ask her where she lived, for example?
He never said,
“Call me and do this.”
The defendant’s
intention was exactly as he said in his PLJ.
You need to sort
out the wheat from the chaff. The only fair submission is Not Guilty…”
A cursory read of Bell’s closing speech could make
the reader believe that he was
supporting his client and fighting in his client’s corner.
But, once we unpick it, we think that you will come to realise that it
was a clever ruse to make the Court believe that he was acting in his client’s
best interests. The prosecutor, the judge and the unsworn jury were, we
believe, all in on the act, but those in the public gallery were led to believe
that it was a bona fide trial. It was
anything but.
Bell told the Court: “…The females claim that the defendant is a dirty old man. We are in a court of law, not morals…”
The females did not claim this. Here Bell is telling the Court something that didn’t
happen. He is sowing a seed of doubt – that Brian is a ‘dirty old man’. As authors, we have spoken to several people
who know Brian well and others who know him less well. Not a single person whom
we have spoken to has ever described him in that way. A defence barrister who
was properly fighting on his or her client’s behalf would have launched into a
monologue about Brian’s extensive record of teaching without any issues, no
criminal record by the age of 55, and his charity work in the local community.
Bell did not mention any of this. Furthermore, he
did not call Geoffrey Bacon as a key witness.
Bell told the Court: “…He was asked many intimate questions about his personal life and his
sexual life…”
This was true – Brian’s personal sex life was called into question in
a way which did not meet the allegations against him. And Bell never once raised an objection to the prosecution
trying to defame Brian in open Court, even to the extent (as we have seen) of
Forster asking Brian about the length of his penis. It
was inhumane treatment of an innocent defendant and we express the opinion that
even a guilty defendant ought not to have been treated in such a way.
Bell told the Court: “…He entered the witness box at 2.40 but was not asked a question until
4.15 on Count 1 and not until 4.20 on Count 2…”
Again, this was actually true. However, Bell failed to mention that he had a duty to Brian
to have asked the judge what the relevance was of Forster’s inane cross-examination. He
failed to object to Forster’s trawling expedition.
Bell told the Court: “…These allegations are extremely serious for the defendant…”
So serious, yet he failed to write a genuine defence statement, he
turned up late every day for the trial, he failed to meet on a daily basis with
Brian to re-group and talk tactics, he failed to call character witnesses
(Brian had to do this), he failed to call witnesses as to the facts, and he
failed to ensure that the trial was conducted properly.
Bell told the Court: “…The word ‘paedophile’ has been mentioned…”
In fact, it had never been
mentioned. Notice how Bell introduced it here. The CPS did not need to impugn Brian’s character when
his own defence counsel (dismissed two days earlier) described his client in this
way, doing the prosecution’s job for them.
Brian Pead is not a
paedophile. As authors who have extensively researched the evidence and met him
on numerous occasions, we are confident that what Marcia Weise said at Charing Cross police station on 4 June 2008 was completely correct: “Brian,
I can see exactly what’s happened here. You’re clearly not a paedophile because
I’ve met many through my work and you’re not. But what you’ve done is you’ve out-stung
their sting operation and they will be out to get you. Be careful…”
Do you not consider it strange that Bell did not call Marcia Weise as a witness? We do. Brian had told him about
her comments and thus Bell knew that
the conversation had taken place. Furthermore, Marcia Weise worked for AA
Mirsons, the solicitors who
instructed Bell to act as defence counsel. Angela Shaw, Brian’s solicitor, worked in
the very same office as Marcia Weise, so Shaw should have ensured
that Weise was called as a witness by Bell.
There are many reasons why we believe that this trial was an unlawful
trial – this is just one of them. It is a compelling reason.
Bell told the Court: “…You have to cross-refer the statements of the three young women…”
We have studied the witness statements made by the three females
living at 62 Days Lane. Remember that these
statements were unsigned and they contained no URN (unique reference number).
They are, of course, unlawful documents. That said, we have studied them
carefully and it is evident that the three statements are so completely different
from one another and they bear no relation to the alleged offence by Brian. It
is difficult to conceive how the case ever came to the Crown Court - it is
quite remarkable from a legal point
of view. We believe that by now you will have worked out why this trial did
actually take place from the evidence we have produced here. Undoubtedly you
will have ideas of your own.
Bell told the Court: “…If you examine the geography of that bedroom, it is unlikely that he
intentionally exposed his genitals…”
This was an appalling piece of summation by Bell. The phrase “it is unlikely”
was crafted by Bell to suggest that there was some doubt that
Brian had exposed his genitals, but
the truth is he had not, the female witnesses also said that he had not, and
John Callow’s professional report showed
that it was impossible for him to
have done so because of the geography of that room – the high windowsills and
the extremely low ceiling in the bay window at 89 Days Lane.
Bell told the Court: “…You may conclude that he was trying to procure some sort of sexual act…”
All barristers – whether prosecuting or defending – are taught how to
address a jury. Part of their teaching is based on the language they use in
Court and the power of their words and of suggestibility – the psychological
process by which an idea is induced in, or adopted by, an individual or group
without argument, command or coercion. No barrister worth his or her salt would
dream of saying to a jury – even a jury that was not sworn in – what they might
be thinking or concluding, and certainly not that the defendant was “trying to
secure some sort of sexual act.” This is professional suicide.
Bell told the Court: “…The defendant said he had communicated with the girl on Faceparty and
then moved to MSN…”
This was true – the evidence is incontrovertible. Even the police
documents which we have obtained prove this to be true. Why, then, did Bell not produce this evidence to the Court? Why
did he not place the evidence before the (unsworn) jury?
Bell told the Court: “…The defendant’s apparent fascination with escorts was peripheral…”
Brian has a fascination for the psychology
of all kinds of human relationships. He was a keen attendee at the London
Psychodrama network. He came across the work of Jakob Moreno (1889-1974), who was the founder
of the Group- Psychotherapy Psychodrama, founder of Sociometry-Effect on
Sociology and Psychotherapy in Groups and Theatre. While a student
at the University of Vienna in 1917, Moreno gathered together a group of
prostitutes as a way of discussing the social stigma and other problems they
faced, starting what might be called the first support group. From experiences
like that, and as inspired by psychoanalysts such as Wilhelm Reich and Freud,
Moreno began to develop psychodrama. For more information on the life and work
of Jakob Moreno, please visit: <www.moreno-museum.at/moreno-museum-biography-en.html>
Furthermore, whilst at Avery Hill teaching training college from 1982,
Brian and his peers who were studying to be teachers of English encountered
George Eric Brown, a lecturer who had written a detailed study of George
Bernard Shaw. Brian and the lecturer built a relationship based on mutual trust
and respect. Eric Brown (he preferred to be known by his middle name) had
published a book on Shaw in 1971 (Arco Books) and the English students had
studied Mrs Warren’s Profession, a
play that made Brian extremely angry.
Shaw said he wrote the play “…to
draw attention to the truth that prostitution is caused, not by female
depravity and male licentiousness, but simply by underpaying, undervaluing, and
overworking women so shamefully that the poorest of them are forced to resort
to prostitution to keep body and soul together…”
George Bernard Shaw was a free spirit and a
freethinker who advocated women’s rights and equality on income, and Brian is a
man in the same mould. The play made him very angry and it touched on his love
of psychology and sociology and justice and equality for all. He felt humble
and privileged to be studying a play by Shaw under the guidance of a lecturer
who had had a well-respected book about the playwright published. In their
conversations together, Eric Brown and Brian Pead discussed topics of social
deprivation, prostitution and equality.
As we have shown, there have been several famous psychologists who
have been ‘fascinated’ by prostitutes, escorts and sex workers. Brian makes no
apologies for his interest (he does not describe it as a ‘fascination’) in
women who sell their bodies for money, and Mrs
Warren’s Profession left an indelible mark on his consciousness. He also
believed that a 15-year-old girl who abused him in the children’s home in
Harpenden would have become involved in the sex industry
in one form or another. And his deep interest in the Preventure programme run
by King’s College, London also heightened his interest in such workers. Why is
it perfectly alright for psychologists working at King’s College to be
interested in sex workers, but not for Brian, an independent psychologist,
author and researcher? We strongly argue that Brian has as much right as
anybody else to conduct such research into whatever topic he should choose and
we believe that any human being has an equal right to conduct such research
without being treated by the State in the ways that Brian has.
Bell told the Court: “…The CPS are
seeking to paint before you a picture of the defendant as an old man with an
unhealthy interest in younger women…”
We do not subscribe to the view that 55 equates to ‘an old man’, but
nonetheless, Bell failed to rebut this adequately. He failed his
client once again. Nor is there any credible evidence to show that Brian had an
interest in younger women, yet much evidence to the contrary.
The CPS say “You
have been rumbled ... you knew you were going to be arrested and got rid of
your laptop and we suspect that there
was child pornography on it.”
When Brian was arrested in his own home on 4 June 2008, the police
seized six computers. All of them were forensically examined and not one of
them contained child pornography on them. Brian has told us that he has no
interest in it whatsoever, though he does say that he has an interest in the
people who use it, control it and distribute it, which is an entirely different
concept. As a counsellor, an author and survivor of child sexual abuse, why
would he not have such an interest?
He – like all of us – has the right to have such an interest. Unlike Brian (for
his obvious reasons), we may choose not to explore that interest in the people
who use it, but we support his right to research into any topic that captures his imagination.
Furthermore, the computer he used at Off Centre was wiped clean of his research and the
computer he used at Geoffrey Bacon’s house had its hard drive
burnt out by the police after it had been illegally seized.
Eight computers in all – not one of them contained child pornography.
Space does not permit us to discuss this topic further here, but we
suggest you might like to visit <www.wikileaks.com> and search for ‘An insight into child porn’. We believe
that you may be shocked by what you read there. The document was created on 26
February 2009 – ten months before Brian’s illegal trial.
Bell told the Court: “…I wanted to ask Warwick Brown about the identity of these girls, but he was
unavailable…”
It was Bell’s duty to call
Warwick Brown – the IT manager of Faceparty – as a witness. It was his duty to examine Forster’s claim that Brown had
emigrated to Australia. It was his duty
to ensure that a video-link with a Court in Australia (had that been the real
situation) was set up.
But Bell failed to do any of these standard things. He knew, we believe, that Warwick
Brown was not in Australia but in London and in any
event it was his duty to establish
the whereabouts of such an important witness.
We have critically analysed Bell’s closing statement and
believe it to have failed Brian.
We now turn to the summing-up of Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith.
We will repeat our previous two examples in which we will reproduce the
Summing-Up and then highlight certain phrases which we will subsequently
discuss.
