FRAMED! - part 22

Brian had pleaded Not Guilty to the charge of Exposure and also to the Charge of Incitement (amended to an attempt to incite.) He was, therefore, entitled to call expert witnesses and to ask them to produce their evidence before a jury. He had informed Dominic Bell, his barrister, and Angela Shaw, his solicitor, of AA Mirsons.

We pause here to provide a brief curriculum vitae for Dominic Bell. On the Charter Chambers website he was described thus:

“…Dominic Bell was called to the Bar in 1992 at Inner Temple. He has been practising criminal defence exclusively for 17 years. His specialist areas include sexual offences.

Dominic has a real passion for fairness and has a reputation for being a fighter who is not afraid to pursue his client’s case utterly fearlessly, both in and out of Court. He has a particular interest in prosecution disclosure, or the lack of it, always being determined to ensure that prosecutors properly comply with their duty.

Dominic is a fearless cross-examiner…”

The emphases are ours: we ask you – when reading the rest of this book – to bear in mind the reputation of Mr Bell and ask yourself whether you believe that he lived up to his reputation when defending Brian.

Bell – a chain-smoker – had humoured Pead by ‘allowing’ him to call his friend, John Callow (featured in the book from Hillsborough to Lambeth) in the Exposure case, but not Dr John Olsson in the Incitement case. Brian knew this to be bizarre and he voiced his concerns to both Shaw and Bell, but they failed to act. They therefore knowingly contributed to a miscarriage of justice.

Where an expert witness is to be used, the party calling the witness is supposed to provide a copy of that witness’s evidence to the other party as soon as possible. Brian knew that if he called Dr Olsson, then he would sink the Crown Prosecution Service’s allegations without trace. Was this the reason that Bell failed to call Olsson? Did Bell need his client to be found guilty? This ‘trial’ was following the exact same process that had occurred at Lambeth Council, where – as lawyer Alex Passman stated – Brian had been ‘set up’ and unlawfully dismissed.

Rule 24.2 allows for the fact that a party using expert evidence may withhold that evidence from the other side on the grounds that, for example, a witness may be intimidated, or that the course of justice might be interfered with. However, this would not have been the case here. Bell failed to act upon his client’s instructions, as did Shaw.

It is necessary at this point to pause for reflection and to note precisely what had occurred in Brian Pead’s case. Not only were two completely separate indictments heard before the same jury (which is unlawful in itself), not only was that jury improperly sworn in, not only were Criminal Procedure Rules being breached at almost every opportunity, but also his own solicitor, Angela Shaw of AA Mirsons, and his barrister, Dominic Bell then of Charter Chambers, were also failing to work in the best interests of their client as described by Julian Young in Chapter 40.

Why would this be so? On the facts that existed at that time, it was alleged that Brian had exposed himself to three 20-something females living across the road from him and he had allegedly incited a 14-year-old female into having sexual relations for money. Had these offences even been true they hardly warranted such attention that Brian had been receiving and they hardly warranted such perverse actions from those operating within the criminal justice system.

Forster continued trying to persuade a jury that had not been sworn in: “Faceparty is now defunct. The defendant was quick to ask to meet the girl. He gave her a mobile number. Then a second mobile number. Then a third number…”

It has been explained in a previous chapter that these were all false mobile phone numbers because Brian had no wish to meet this person but he did have a wish to expose this person during a process of ‘smoking him out’.

Forster continued in his submission to the jury, saying “…On 8 May 2008 he sent a message entitled Cash4U. This was one of a number of messages that he sent out that day re money for sex.”

Brian Pead told this to the police because he knew he was innocently smoking out a number of people who appeared to be ‘dodgy’ on the website.

The question has to be asked: “If Brian was up to no good, why would he have admitted to doing this?” The police had no proof that it was Brian who sent those messages from the computer at Geoffrey Bacon’s house on 8 May 2008 – indeed, it could have been Geoffrey Bacon who sent those messages. This alone would have provided the ‘reasonable doubt’ necessary for an acquittal by a jury. But Brian simply told the truth.

“He claims his laptop had been thrown away. He put himself forward as a counsellor. He denied he had indulged in any sexual relations with anyone under 16,” continued Forster.

These are facts – he had disposed of his laptop and friends knew of this. He did put himself forward as a counsellor because he was a counsellor and this could have been proven by calling Jennifer Sandelson or Lynne Kaye at CPPD counselling school in Hornsey, north London. And one of the CPS’s witnesses was Nicola Noone, who was ready to concur that Brian had worked as a counsellor at Off Centre.

He said that he had never indulged in any sexual relations with anyone under 16 because this, too, was the truth. Since no-one has ever come forward to challenge his statement, and since there is a considerable body of work to prove that those who had known Brian over many years had never had any doubts about him, we are forced to accept it as the truth.

“He admitted sending these messages on 8 May. The Crown’s case is that here is a man in a heightened state of sexual interest in younger women.”

Brian, as we have seen, did admit to sending these messages from the computer at the house of Geoffrey Bacon, a longstanding friend, and a man who had been cleared by the Home Office to work in royal and governmental buildings – thus he is a man of considerable integrity.

And, as we have seen, Brian told his friend on 15 May 2008 – when he also sent similar messages – that he had encountered sex offender types on Faceparty and that what he had uncovered there had caused him some great discomfort.

But note that Timothy Forster has addressed the jury (albeit a jury not sworn in) and he knows that the date of 15 May 2008 is a critical date, but he does nothing to bring this to the attention of the jury!

Forster has omitted the crucial conversation of 15 May 2008 in which Brian told the ‘girl’ to “Fuck off! You are a fake!”

We need to be clear about this: the CPS and the Police know that 15 May 2008 is a critical date and they have conveniently omitted this date from the trial.

This means, of course, that the entire trial has been based on a fabrication. On his own admission, Brian told the police that he had engaged in five conversations with the person claiming to be a ‘girl’ – the first of these was on 28 January 2008 and the final conversation was on 15 May 2008 at Geoffrey Bacon’s house, where he explained his concerns about Faceparty to his friend.

Yet the prosecution – under Timothy Forster’s guidance – had omitted the first and fifth conversations and were relying entirely upon only three conversations.

Those who study language and communication understand that the meaning of a conversation is usually expressed in the opening words or minutes and often confirmed in the final words or minutes. The middle part of a conversation is what might be referred to as ‘filler’. The following explanation of Interpersonal Communication from the Wikipedia website helps to provide a basic insight into the dyad between Brian and the ‘girl’:

“...Communication scholars define interpersonal communication in numerous ways, usually describing participants who are dependent upon one another. It can involve one on one conversations or individuals interacting with many people within a society. It helps us understand how and why people behave and communicate in different ways to construct and negotiate a social reality. While interpersonal communication can be defined as its own area of study, it also occurs within other contexts like groups and organizations. Interpersonal communication is the process that we use to communicate our ideas, thoughts, and feelings to another person. Our interpersonal communication skills are learned behaviours that can be improved through knowledge, practice, feedback, and reflection.

Context refers to the conditions that precede or surround the communication. It consists of present or past events from which the meaning of the message is derived, though it may also, in the case of written communications, depend upon the statements preceding and following the quotation in question...”

The emphasis is ours: context is vitally important to meaning and intent.  In order to understand the conversations Brian had with this ‘girl’ – and his real motives for doing so – we would have to read all five of the conversations, because without one and five, the conversations numbered two, three and four are merely ‘filler’ and thus are taken out of context.

The authors feel certain that almost every reader of this book will have overheard snippets of conversation and totally misunderstood the real intent behind the conversation. What we think we have heard and what we have really heard are often very different, which is why books such as Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus are read in such large numbers. People the world over often seek better communication. Remove the parts of a conversation in which the real meaning and intent are omitted, then the ‘filler’ becomes almost meaningless.

Timothy Forster continued to misinform the jury: “The Crown’s case is that this was an attempt at Incitement because the girl did not exist.”

Note carefully the words “…the girl did not exist…”

These words carry great significance. Firstly, this is precisely what Brian had told the police when he was interviewed under caution on 4 June 2008. He had honestly spoken about his research into Faceparty and had told the police that he had known all along that the ‘girl’ did not exist. Geoffrey Bacon corroborated this. Now even the Crown Prosecutor has admitted it.

Secondly, if you look back to chapter 29, and the precise wording on the Ministry of Justice’s own website, you will find that to be guilty of an offence of Incitement (or an attempt at Incitement), Person A (let’s say Brian) has to incite Person B (who, in this case, must be either under the age of 16 or 13).

But at this point in the trial, Timothy Forster has said in open court that “…the girl did not exist…”

In reality, of course, if the girl did not exist, then there never was a Person B and so the trial ought to have stopped at this point and everyone gone home. It was a trial based on farce.

We suggest that you now ask yourself “Why would the CPS, the Police and the Court system be going through this charade? Why would they go to such extraordinary lengths to defame an innocent man – and a man, whom the Law itself says, cannot possibly be guilty of the crime because ‘the girl does not exist’.

Cast your mind back to Marcia Weise, the astute legal representative who attended Charing Cross police station on 4 June 2008 and who told her client “It is obvious to me that you have out-stung their illegal sting operation and they will be out to get you.”

Brian had, as we have seen, uncovered an illegal police sting operation and other misdemeanours on the Faceparty website. This has been widely corroborated by bloggers and posters on the internet.

Yet, although the trial has already seen a number of breaches of the Criminal Procedure Rules which mean that the trial was improper, the number of breaches was to rise alarmingly fast.  

Forster addressed the jury again: “The first witness is Miss Natalie Ryan. Miss Ryan has difficulty in coming back tomorrow.”

Natalie Ryan entered the Court room and took the oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She was dressed in black and looked as though she was going to a funeral. Brian felt that it was a funeral for Justice, because he knew at this early stage of the trial that Justice had died.

Forster added, “She says a letter from Pead came through the door three minutes after a night out. Her friend Elizabeth found the letter first.”

Forster gave out Exhibit 1 (Brian’s note and envelope) and Exhibit 2 (photograph catalogued as PET101). This photograph had been taken by the police photographer Peter Thompson from Brian’s bedroom window in broad daylight and using a zoom lens which made it appear that if Brian and Elizabeth McIntyre had leant out of their respective bedroom windows, they could have shaken hands. The reality was that the two houses were almost 100 feet (33 metres) apart. Furthermore, the female tenants at 62 Days Lane had claimed that all the alleged incidents had occurred between 10pm and midnight, so why would Thompson take a photograph in broad daylight unless he was deliberately trying to mislead the Court?  

Now we have the testimony of Natalie Ryan.

“…Brian Pead was mainly sitting in his room.  The light was odd. I received the letter in January. He was always at the same window – his bedroom window. The light in the room was quite bright. The main light source was on. I could see everything from thigh level up. I saw him masturbating. I can’t remember which hand. I couldn’t see his penis because of the light and the shadows. The light source was not clear enough to see his penis. He was not wearing anything. I couldn’t see if he had shoes and socks on. I saw him for five minutes…”

Notice Ms Ryan’s differences of opinion about the light in Brian’s bedroom. Notice, too, how she says that she could not see Brian’s penis and remind yourself of the Law about exposure: that a person exposes his genitalia in order to cause an observer alarm and distress. Notice also that Brian put a letter through the door of 62 Days Lane in October 2007 addressed to Elizabeth McIntyre. And pay attention to the fact that Ms Ryan claimed that she was unable to remember which hand Brian was allegedly using to masturbate – but that in her witness statement to police she claimed that she had seen him masturbating over a period of many months.

Natalie Ryan claimed that “…The light in the room was quite bright. The main light source was on. I could see everything from thigh level up...” then she claimed that “…the light source was not clear enough to see his penis…”

We leave the reader to make your own mind up about these obvious contradictions.

Forster:      Was the light on in Elizabeth McIntyre’s bedroom?

Ryan:         Yes.

Forster:      Were the 5 minutes you watched the defendant masturbating uninterrupted minutes?

Ryan:         Yes.

Forster:      What was he doing for 5 minutes?

Ryan:         Masturbating.

Forster:      Did the other two girls have the same view?

Notice how Forster has fed the Court another lie – he knows that the house contained four students, not three. Brian’s defence counsel, Dominic Bell, ought to have called the fourth tenant as a witness in order to cross-examine her about why she had not made a statement and why she had not been called as a witness by the prosecution.

At this point in the trial, Angela Shaw, the solicitor from AA Mirson’s who worked with Marcia Weise and therefore knew the truth that Brian had uncovered an illegal sting operation came into the Court and sat behind Dominic Bell. She did not even acknowledge her client.

Forster:      Did any other incident happen?

Ryan:         No.  I stayed 4 months longer.  I saw him at his computer                      but apart from that nothing.

In reality this witness had been next to useless to the Crown and extremely useful to Brian. She had informed the Court that she had not seen Brian’s genitals. She lied about seeing Brian masturbate. Notice, too, the dates. She claimed she had seen him masturbate in his bedroom in May 2008 and that she ‘stayed four months longer’. If this were true, she would have left 62 Days Lane in September 2008, but by then the house was being redecorated in readiness for sale. Consider how the house had been a family home for decades, then it becomes a house for female students (possibly of dubious repute according to the evidence of neighbours) and then it reverted to a family home again, having served its purpose.

But notice something else, too. Natalie Ryan claimed to have seen Brian ‘at his computer’, but he didn’t have a working computer in his house which was why he used the computer at Geoffrey Bacon’s house in May.

Yet to most people, these little, almost insignificant details are not worthy of much attention. The authors believe the opposite. As the fictional Sherlock Holmes used to say, “To solve a crime, you must pay attention to the smallest of details.” The famous QC, Michael Mansfield, has written in his autobiography that to overturn a miscarriage of justice, you need to trawl through the trial transcripts and also the paperwork, especially the unused documentation that the CPS are meant to provide to all defendants but often hold back (unlawfully) in order to secure convictions, fill the prisons and the coffers of the private corporations running the prison service and the courts.

Dominic Bell, Brian’s defence counsel, began his cross-examination of Natalie Ryan.

Bell: Why didn’t you turn up to trial in February 2009?

Ryan: The police forgot to tell us the trial was on.

As we have explained in previous chapters, the police had not forgotten to tell the females that the trial was on, but they had deliberately caused the trial to collapse in order to seek Joinder for a second time (it having been previously refused) of two cases against Brian.

But notice how Bell had made an appearance of running a defence capable of acquitting Brian. Any barrister worth the name would have continued to ask questions about the statement that the police ‘forgot to tell us the trial was on’. Indeed, Pamela Brain, Brian’s original defence barrister in the Exposure case, entered on her notes that it was strange that the trial collapsed because Forster had assured the Judge (Charles Byers) the previous week that his witnesses (the female tenants) were “ready to go”. But Bell failed his client. Whether he was corrupt or merely inept and negligent is a question for the reader to consider. Whichever side of the fence you come down on, consider how Bell failed to call Pamela Brain as a witness and how he failed to call Judge Byers as a witness and how he failed to robustly cross-examine Natalie Ryan. The trial was a pretence. It was ‘smoke and mirrors’ – Brian Pead knew too much and ‘they’ were out to get him, just as Marcia Weise had predicted 18 months earlier.

Bell:                        You said you only saw mid-thigh up?

Ryan:         Yes.

Bell:                        Never his penis?

Ryan:         No.

This is clear testimony that Brian cannot be guilty of exposure – she had not seen his penis. (Neither had she seen him masturbate, but from a legal perspective, it does not actually matter whether he did or did not masturbate because he had been charged with exposure and Ryan states that she had not seen his penis, which means that he could not have exposed himself.

Bell:                        Look at photographs PET 102, 103, 104.

[Authors’ note: these were photographs taken by DC Peter Thompson of Bexley Police, all in broad daylight and all with a zoom lens.]

Ryan:         Elizabeth never got changed in her bedroom after the letter. Elizabeth never kept a diary.  I suggested that she keep the letter.

She used to shut both curtains if she was in her bedroom.

Natalie Ryan is clearly lying here. Ellen ‘Nellie’ Stanley had made a statement in which she said that she had seen the odd pattern of the curtains in Elizabeth McIntyre’s bedroom and Maya Walker had also seen the same phenomenon and made a statement about it. Furthermore, in her statement, Maya Walker said that she had seen Elizabeth McIntyre undressing in her bedroom in May 2008 (even after the females had allegedly called the police about the alleged masturbation). Notice how Brian had been accused of alleged masturbation in the White Bear Theatre in Kennington whilst working at Lambeth. The modus operando of the allegations against him were far too similar to be mere coincidence.

At this point, Dominic Bell distributed a plan of Days Lane to the jury. This had been created by John Callow, an experienced surveyor who produced a professional document to the legal standard.

Bell:            Would you say that Elizabeth McIntyre – your friend – is something of an exhibitionist?

Ryan:         Yes, I agree that Elizabeth is an exhibitionist from her personality.  I did not see his genitals.

Bell then completes his cross-examination because Natalie Ryan had admitted again that she had not seen Brian’s genitals.

Once cross-examination has taken place by defence counsel, the prosecution is then allowed to question the witness for a second time based on the replies given under cross-examination.

Forster merely read out sections of Natalie Ryan’s statement that she gave to the police in which she claimed that she had seen Brian’s genitals.

After she left the Court at 1.15pm, the session had finished and the jury filed out.

In total, the ‘trial’ had lasted a little over two hours. The Court had heard about two invented allegations against Brian and it had heard its first witness – it was clear that the females were being ‘drip-fed’ to the Court to make as much impact as possible.

It was also clear that Timothy Forster providing wrong information to the jury, and that Brian’s barrister, Dominic Bell, was not ‘playing with a straight bat’ when it came to seeking full disclosure and cross-examining witnesses.

What extraordinary lengths to go to for a man who had never spoken to a 14-year-old.