FRAMED! - part 15

31

On 24 February 2009, Stephen Nelson, a partner in Nelson, Guest and Partners of 80 High Street, Sidcup, wrote the following letter to Brian:

“…As I understand the position, matters are most unsatisfactory in that the Crown had told the court that all witnesses were available for trial yet when the case was listed, this turned out not to be the case. I understand there is a new warned list of 27 May 2009 … I understand that you were quite understandably peeved about this matter no more so I assure you than we are…”

Mr Stephen Nelson may well have been as peeved as Brian, but he failed to bring these appalling instances of the perversion of the course of justice to the attention of the appropriate authorities as his professional duty required. He failed to act in the best interest of his client, and he allowed a miscarriage of justice to take place.  

On 27 February 2009 at 9:45am, Brian attended the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (then housed at 70 Horseferry Road) with Maya Walker so that he could enter his plea of “Not Guilty” to Incitement and the case be committed to Southwark Crown Court.

Notice how busy the authorities were keeping Brian at this stage. It was just as well, one might imagine, that he was now currently unemployed because the court appearances were coming thick and fast.

On the same day at 13:13, DC Godfrey added another entry to the CRIS live report. We reproduce it here:

                    

“…On 16/2/09 at 16.07hrs Mr Pead was charged with attempting to incite a child aged 14 to engage in sexual activity. He replied, “I’m not guilty.” He was bailed to City of Westminster Mags on 27 February 2009…”

Notice the word child. It is clear from the wording of this charge that the assumption to a casual reader of the charge is that a real 14-year-old child exists. However, the police, the CPS and Julia Godfrey know that this child does not exist and that the charge is ill-conceived on its face.

For further corroborative evidence to support our claim that Julia Godfrey knows that there is no real child (and therefore no crime) is by examining the previous entry in the very same CRIS report. Note carefully the word child in that previous entry:

“…On 30/1/09 Mr Pead answered his bail. He was further interviewed in the presence of his solicitor regarding a telephone call made from his mobile phone to the number given by the ‘child’ on the chatlog…”

Did you notice the sleight of hand used by DC Godfrey? On 27 February 2009 at 13:13hrs, she puts the word child in quotation marks (‘child’) to indicate that she knows that there really is no child.

Yet, at 13:15hrs (that is, just two minutes later), she does not put the word child in quotation marks on the charge sheet. This is because she knows that if she does place the word child in quote marks on the charge sheet, then there is no charge. It is all smoke and mirrors.

Just two minutes. At 13:13, it’s ‘child’ and at 13:15 it’s child. A whole world of difference to Brian Pead.

But the duplicity of this person calling herself DC Julia Godfrey knows no bounds because she adds a further line to the entry at 13:15hrs – “He has been given bail with the condition that he has no unsupervised contact to (sic) any child aged under 16 years.”

And then she adds the following line: “I today contacted his daughter Sorrel, and advised her of this bail condition.”

Notice that sleight of hand, too. We should ask ourselves what purpose that telephone call served. By this stage, DC Godfrey knows that Brian has no contact with his daughter or grand-children because of her duplicity. Although he was divorced in 1983, Brian remained a ‘family’ man and friends often commented on his devotion to his daughter, and then to her children. The police were out to break Brian down psychologically, emotionally, financially and in any other way possible. He represented a great danger to them. He was capable of ensuring that several officers would go to prison. For this reason alone, he had been deemed a ‘fixated threat’ who must be stopped at any cost.

DC Godfrey, of course, the woman who told Geoffrey and Roy Bacon that their friend was a ‘paedophile’, also worked hard on staff at Off Centre (principally Nicola Noone) and also on Sorrel Pead.

The police set out to defame anyone who seeks to undermine their own criminal activity. It would have been easy for DC Godfrey to turn Sorrel’s mind against her father because his daughter already had several reasons for angst against her father. Furthermore, the conversation will have been “If you have anything further to do with your father with such bail conditions in place, we will have to inform Social Services and your children will be taken away and placed in care.”

Sorrel Pead, due to the devious and cunning police officers (it’s almost always a female officer who ‘befriends’ the family and pretends to be their ‘friend who is only acting in your best interest’), had no choice but to sever all contact with her father and focus on her children.

The police have no remorse for breaking families apart. The niceties of human nature fall by the wayside in their cunning machinations.

 But this chapter about the CRIS report is not quite finished. We will examine the next entry made by DC Godfrey at 15:27hrs on 04 March 2009:

“…This investigation resulted from a police operation whereby a covert internet investigator (CII) posing as a 14-year-old female child interacted with the suspect via the internet. The suspect engaged in overly sexualised chat with the CII, and offered them money to perform sexual acts.

A warrant was executed at the suspects (sic) home address and suspect arrested. He was subsequently charged with attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity. This crime is now complete…”

This is, once again, false representation by Godfrey.  Notice first how she does not use quotation marks when using the word child. Notice, also, that she states what Brian had told the police on 4 June 2008 – that he had known from the start that it was not a child. He had also told his friend Geoffrey Bacon this fact on 15 May 2008, when using his friend’s computer.

The suspect did not engage in ‘overly sexualised chat’ with the CII – we have seen the transcripts and it is obvious that he asked a number of questions about what services the person alleging to be the girl was offering because he was ‘smoking her out’, knowing ‘her’ not to be a real child.

Notice how DC Godfrey claims that a warrant was executed at Brian’s address – it was not. The house search was illegal.

Notice, too, that DC Godfrey also claims that Brian was arrested – which is true, but she fails to state why he was arrested. The CRIS report is supposed to have this information added to it, for obvious reasons.

Notice, too, that DC Godfrey claims that Brian offered money to perform sexual acts. This is also untrue, as can be seen from the transcripts.

At 17:40, her supervising officer, DS Jason Tunn (the man who illegally seized Geoffrey Bacon’s computer) made an entry into the CRIS report:

“…This suspect has now been charged and is now within the court system. This report can now be closed accordingly…”

The man who had perpetrated criminal activity of his own was now happy – it would seem – to allow an innocent man to be charged with a crime against a girl when no such girl ever existed!

But if you now begin to feel that the completion of the CRIS report signals an end to the police corruption, you would be very much mistaken.

It has only just begun. Brian Pead was about to embark upon a journey which no innocent person should have to embark upon. But he was, however, not alone … his beloved grand-children were also suffering because of his absence, but at least he had them in his heart. It was a love which would ensure he had the courage to fight institutionalised corruption not only inside the police, but also within the judicial system.

32

With the deliberately collapsed trial for Exposure at Woolwich in the Court of Judge Charles Byers, the trial was transferred to Southwark Crown Court.

However, New Scotland Yard were keen to destroy Brian Pead because (i) he had uncovered child abuse within Lambeth Council and (ii) he had uncovered illicit police activity on the Faceparty website. From their perspective, he was a very dangerous man. Throughout history, almost all Governments or their agencies have gotten rid of or defamed people who speak out against them.

Many people are unaware that a considerable proportion of the stories about crime that appear in their local (often free) newspapers actually originate from the vast press office at Scotland Yard.

The Bexley Times dated 07 May 2009 carried the story below. We will reproduce it here in its entirety and then discuss it:

“…A COUNSELLOR called Brian Pead has appeared in court accused of offering to pay a 14-year-old girl for sex. Pead, 55, of Days Lane, Sidcup, allegedly tried to arrange the illicit deal while chatting over the internet but she turned out to be an undercover policeman.

He contacted fake teen through a social networking website and the conversation became sexually explicit as they moved to MSN, it is claimed.

The grey-haired and suited defendant spoke only to confirm his identity during a brief preliminary hearing at Southwark Crown Court. Judge James Wadsworth, QC transferred the case to Woolwich Crown Court for legal reasons. The judge allowed him bail as before ahead of a hearing there on May 27.

Pead faces a charge of inciting child sex between January 28 and May 8 last year…”

Notice the first line of the report. It has been deliberately written this way to try to force the reader to believe that there is a real 14-year-old girl. The first piece of information that the reader sees is “14-year-old girl”. A seed has been sown. A false lead in the reader’s mind is already being followed.

The article then provides Brian’s age (so that now the reader is thinking ‘14-year-old girl, 55-year-old man – pervert!’) and also Brian’s address (for all the people who like to go ‘paedo-bashing’.)

The use of the word ‘allegedly’ covers their backsides in claims of defamation. But look at the second part of the second sentence – we will highlight in bold the key words: ‘…but she turned out to be an undercover policeman…’

Note that the author of the piece (a Scotland Yard press officer) appears not be able to make up his/ her mind about the gender of the alleged undercover cop.

But the third sentence is of great significance in this story:

“…He contacted fake teen through a social networking website and the conversation became sexually explicit as they moved to MSN…”

The emphasis is ours. This clearly states that there were two distinct steps in the first encounter between Brian and the ‘teen’:

1.          they spoke on a social networking website, and

2.         they moved to MSN.

We will explain the significance of this two-step process in a later chapter.

Notice that Brian Pead is described as ‘grey-haired’, which provides the reader with an even better image of an older man.

But examine the final sentence, because that, too, is of great significance:

“…Pead faces a charge of inciting child sex between January 28 and May 8 last year…”

A relatively short sentence, but full of errors in the game of smoke and mirrors.

Brian Pead was charged with inciting child sex, even though there never was a real person. Note that he was not charged with an attempt to incite child sex. From a legal perspective, this is of crucial significance.

But also note how the end date of 15 May 2008 (when Brian used Geoffrey Bacon’s computer and had told the ‘girl’ “You are a fake!”) has been removed from the original data added by DC Godfrey to the live CRIS report on the police national computer.

In a relatively short account of the court hearing, it is full of inaccuracies which the average reader would never see unless they were familiar with the man or the case.

But the police ‘dirty tricks’ campaign did not stop there. They ensured that the account was put online and that, of course, opens the story out to a much larger audience, many of whom use their anonymous status to post all manner of defamatory and inaccurate comments.

We have seen several posts against this story shouting words like ‘Pervert!’ and ‘Monster!’ The posts are always left by anonymous people – how brave of them – and these people include police officers.

33

The ‘obsessive’ (his own description) Timothy Forster made a second application for Joinder and a hearing was scheduled before Judge Robbins. We cannot stress too strongly that it is unlawful to join two such indictments and that Joinder had been refused by Judge Byers on the grounds that there was “no common nexus”.

In court were Forster, Bell, Julia Godfrey and Brian.

The judge explained that there were two indictments and he felt that there was some overlap in dates – the females accusing him of exposure had complained in May 2008 and there had been communication between Brian and the ‘girl’ in May 2008. For those not au fait with the finer points of legal intricacies, these are not sufficient reasons to try to join two entirely different cases to be heard before the same jury.

The judge then lied when he said in open court: “…Judge Byers, when refusing Joinder at Woolwich did not hear the merits of the case…”

But Judge Byers had heard and discussed the merits of Joinder and – having heard the lack of merits for Joinder – he refused it. At this point in the hearing, Brian was aware of their ‘game’.

Forster claimed in his submission that Brian was sexually aroused by the females living opposite him and that “this equates to the sexual arousal he had when interacting with the 14-year-old girl on the internet.”

Did you notice the sleight of hand in Forster’s submission? Brian had never been sexually aroused by the females living across the road from him, and he had certainly never been aroused when interacting with the person whom he knew not to be a teenager. But those in the legal profession (which includes the police in our view) often make a statement with such force that those listening to it believe it to be true.

Then Forster went a step further, claiming “…he had got arrested and then he got rid of his computer and a jury should know!” (Perhaps his self-description as an ‘obsessive’ is more accurate that we authors realised.)

Brian Pead did not ‘get rid of his computer’ because he had been arrested by the Bexleyheath police on suspicion of exposure. He had disposed of the laptop because it was broken (as we have seen in an earlier chapter) and there were witnesses to this fact. Furthermore, he had disposed of it before he was ever arrested, a fact which was actually corroborated by DC Peter Thompson of Bexley Police because when he (unlawfully) entered Brian’s bedroom to take photographs of 62 Days Lane, Sidcup, he said that he had not seen a laptop in a search of the house.

Playing the game of “I’m going to look as though I am on my Client’s side”, Dominic Bell said, “The application is misconceived. The two indictments are not based on the same facts, form or character. The ages of the alleged victims are significantly different. A man said to be interested in 20+ year olds is not usually interested in under-aged girls. In both cases the alleged conduct is different. The mode of commission of each alleged offence is different. The only similarity is that both cases involve a sexual element.”

Notice how Mr Bell uses the word ‘alleged’ for each point that he makes until he states – as fact – “both cases involve a sexual element.” More sleight of hand.

At this point, Dominic Bell relates the fact that a story about the alleged incitement had appeared in the Bexley Times - a paper which Brian had featured in on a number of occasions as a teacher, an author and as a Charity fund-raiser as Chairman of Sidcup Round Table.

Mr Bell states that “this story emanated from the press office at New Scotland Yard. The journalist could relate the story only if told to him by New Scotland Yard.”

In a previous Hearing at Woolwich Crown Court, the very same Dominic Bell had failed to apply for reporting restrictions, so his righteous indignation against Scotland Yard is mis-placed. No client should ever believe that their barrister is working in their best interest – it is simply not true. Their allegiance is to themselves, the Court and then perhaps the client.

Timothy Forster claimed, “Mr Pead has an advantage with two barristers, one for each case. This is a waste of public funds!”

Note that this entire farce has been a waste of public funds, just as the deliberate collapsed trial at Woolwich had been. Forster took part in that grand deception.

Forster: “The CPS says that the age difference is important – there’s 30 -40 years difference!”

Judge Robbins added to the farce that was playing itself out – all made to give the appearance of being a real encounter. “A renewed application is a rare beast. There is some overlap with regard to dates. The matter came before Judge Byers because it was in a Warned List. He felt that there should be no Joinder. He said that he was of the mind that Joinder would be prejudicial to the defendant, not in the interest of justice and for purely pragmatic reasons he refused Joinder.”

This was a lie. Judge Byers had rightly refused Joinder because there was not a common connection (‘nexus’) between the alleged crimes and also because it would be prejudicial to any defendant to have one jury hear two entirely different crimes based on sexual misconduct, particularly when that defendant is a middle-aged man and the alleged victims (not that any actually existed) are all considerably younger than him.

Judge Robbins then allows the two indictments to be Joined. Read carefully his reasons:

“…These two matters can and should be Joined in the interest of justice. I think we should allow 5 days for the trial…”

And, in that moment, all the principles of the Criminal Procedure Rules had been discarded.

Marcia Weise had been so right: “…You have out-stung their sting operation and they will be out to get you.”