FRAMED! - part 23

42

Tuesday 15 December 2009

Brian woke at 5.30am with a terrible headache. Several feelings from his past kicked in. Feelings from aged five. Deep-rooted and extremely painful feelings of having been abused in the children’s home.

He caught an early train again, and went to Pret for a £1.95 hot chocolate. He sat down in the warm and tried to compose himself before the ordeal of Court.

He began to realise that the Exposure case didn’t affect him at all because it was such obvious nonsense. But the second case caused him immense distress – it was like living the abuse all over again, but this time he was being accused of it when he is, in fact, the ‘victim’.

He tried to eat but couldn’t, feeling sick to the pit of his stomach; his head ached and he had great pain over his right eye.

He was not in a fit state to attend the trial for many reasons. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD] meant that he was having flashbacks to the abuse in the children’s home and he was experiencing considerable emotional pain at the separation from his daughter and grand-children. Although not fit to stand trial – something his doctor agreed with - Bell had pushed him into it – “I can see no reason to delay.”

It was his understanding that two of the other 3 girls would be cross-examined today. He had a hunch that they would lie through their teeth again, like Natalie Ryan did yesterday – but that could actually help him. As the dark cloud of despair began to lift, he began to feel reasonably confident of the outcome of the Exposure case, particularly after Natalie Ryan said she could not see his genitals after all because it was “dark and shadowy”.  He felt sure that this would be contradicted by Elizabeth McIntyre and possibly Katie Prouse, her mate. Of course, it could help his case.

He picked up a copy of the Daily Express, which had articles on over-50s and internet dating. He scanned the pages for any mention of Faceparty, but could find no mention of that website.

At 9:10 he left Pret in order to arrive at Court early. He felt the need to vacate heavily – psychodynamically, this was always associated with the Incitement case and being aged five. The PTSD meant that the very scared little five-year-old Brian needed to evacuate his bowels heavily.

At 09:41, he looked at the screen outside the courtroom and saw his case listed as starting at 09:45 but on the screen it looked as though his case was behind other cases.

A woman came out of Court 4 and asked Brian if he had seen Dominic Bell.  He replied, “No” and asked her what her role was.

She said her name was Shelley and that she was handling the Exposure case. She said DC Saib “is on another case at Woolwich” and Jane Sargeant has “transferred to South Yorkshire”.

The authors believe that it will not be lost on our readers that here was yet another example of the ‘smoke and mirrors’ campaign that was being waged against Brian. At Lambeth, allegations had been made and no witnesses brought forth. At the original trial for Exposure at Woolwich Crown Court, the ‘witnesses’ failed to arrive because ‘the police forgot to tell the witnesses the date of the trial’.

Yesterday, Warwick Brown, the IT manager for the Faceparty website, failed to be summonsed as a witness because he “has emigrated to Australia” – which we have shown to be false, and which his own curriculum vitae proves was a lie by Forster – and today DC Saib is allegedly “on another case at Woolwich” and Jane Sargeant had been “transferred to South Yorkshire”.

Even the most biased of readers who might actually believe that Brian Pead was guilty of one or both offences alleged against him would surely now start to think that this was a most remarkable series of coincidences in which some witnesses fail to attend and others are either busy elsewhere, have emigrated or been transferred. 

It was not lost on Brian that the policewoman’s name was Shelley. This was the name that the ‘girl’ had used on Faceparty and MSN.

At this point, Brian calmly sat down outside of Court 4 and wrote out notes for his barrister. There was no sign of Bell at 09:46.

Brian’s nerves began to settle a little. According to ‘Shelley’, the two other females (Elizabeth McIntyre and Katie Prouse) were in court. He had already mentally prepared himself for that eventuality.

‘WPC Shelley’ spoke into her mobile phone. “The girl needs to review her statement.” She went to sit by the hose reel to Brian’s right, ostensibly out of earshot, but clearly not.

Brian was close to ‘breakdown mode’ – his hands were shaking, his thoughts unclear, and he had difficulty in focussing.

He went to the toilet and it poured out like a running tap – yet he had hardly eaten anything.

By 09:57, there was still no sign of Dominic Bell.  ‘WPC Shelley’ was talking avidly with one of Timothy Forster’s many assistants.

At 10:00 the male police officer claiming to be Shelley14 said in a Scottish voice, “I’ve got the disks. On 14 January 2008 I turned on my computer and he literally messaged me.”

As someone who had studied psychology for most of his life, Brian knew that the conversations he was randomly being ‘allowed’ to overhear were designed so that he could overhear and begin to become agitated and frightened so that he would under-perform in the courtroom.

He knew that the Scottish officer was lying because Brian knew that the person claiming to be a ‘girl’ had messaged him.

At 10:03 DC Julia Godfrey arrived outside Court 4 and Forster made a big show of greeting her with, “We’ve got the disks”.

Godfrey replied, “We’ve got the disks, we’ve got this, we’ve got that...”

Forster: “Excellent.”

At this point, it became clear to Brian that the Paedophile Unit had a big hand in the first case.

At 10:05, the Scottish officer posing as Shelley14 was saying Brian added ‘her’ on 14 January.

At 10:06, it was mentioned that Katie Prouse had a witness to her character.

At 10:07, Brian made a note in his court journal: “Even if I did add Shelley14 on 14 January – so what? There was no contact until 28 January, so that proves a lack of interest on my part.”

At 10:09 Forster was surrounded by an army of acolytes. He was ‘holding court’ and basking in the quasi-glory.

Still no Bell.

It felt to Brian in this moment as though Forster’s team were all out to get him, which is precisely what they wanted him to feel and the reason why these conversations were all occurring within earshot and within sight of him. He made another note in his court journal: “…I know I’m honest and I’ve committed no crimes. I’m innocent and others can think whatever they like. Were I to be found guilty, I know I’m innocent…”

Still playing to the gallery, and his audience of acolytes, Forster said in a voice designed to be overheard, “Whether she saw his genitals or not, if he was naked, then it’s exposure.”

Actually, Forster was wrong according to Archbold and the Law. There has to have been intent. And for there to have been exposure, she would have had to have seen his genitals.  

At 10:12, Brian journalled: “…I cannot believe TF would be so loud. It appears as though he wants me to overhear in an attempt to unsettle me…” – which is precisely what the game was.

Forster then told his audience “Katie Prouse will not be heard until 2pm and Elizabeth McIntyre will be heard this morning.”

At 10:16, there was still no sign of Bell, so Brian went down to Reception and asked for a tannoy message to be made calling for Bell to attend Court 4. The Receptionist was most rude and instructed Brian to return to the courtroom.

At 10.30, the trial recommenced. Forster informed Judge Loraine-Smith that a “Sergeant Robbie was an eye-witness” and that he will be called today.

The jury entered.

Forster called Elizabeth McIntyre, dressed sombrely in black, just as Natalie Ryan had been the previous day – and McIntyre swore “by Almighty God” that she would tell the truth. Somewhere between making that promise and uttering her first words, it appears that she forgot her oath. She played the nervous card as Brian had predicted in his journal notes.

At this point, three policewomen were taking notes: ‘WPC Shelley’, Julia Godfrey and one other, unnamed.

Before reading Elizabeth McIntyre’s testimony, we suggest that you recall the words of the elderly Ellen ‘Nellie’ Stanley who lived at 85 Days Lane, Sidcup. Brian affectionately referred to her as ‘Miss Marple’ in the belief that many elderly women observe a great deal of life in their immediate environment behind net curtains. She had nothing to gain by making the statement that:

“…In September 2007 a group of female students moved into 62 Days Lane, which is directly opposite my house.

I noticed a lot of comings and goings and there were lots of different men going in and out of the house.

There were also a lot of loud parties and noise late into the night, often until 3 or 4am.

For several months I noticed something really strange with the curtains in the upstairs bedroom which overlooks my house, directly opposite.

The curtains were nearly always left open on the left-hand window (as you look at it from my house) even though the curtains at the right-hand window were drawn.

The arrangement of the curtains seemed strange to me and I wondered why anyone would choose to draw the curtains on one window but not the other window which was obviously in the same room.

This strange pattern with the curtains carried on from about September 2007 through to May or June 2008.

I have known Brian for 14 years and believe him to be of good character…”

The emphasis is ours: notice how Ellen Stanley observed this strange pattern with the curtains from September 2007 through to May or June 2008. You will recall that Maya Walker - in a statement that she also voluntarily made - said that she had seen this strange pattern with the curtains on the 18 May 2008 and that Brian had discussed this with her. Brian, as we have seen, also told the police about this strange phenomenon on 20 May 2008 when he was arrested and interviewed at Bexleyheath Police Station. Thus, three separate witnesses corroborated the same facts – that the curtains in Elizabeth McIntyre’s bedroom had been closed in a strange pattern over a period of some nine or ten months. Consider, then, the following testimony of Elizabeth McIntyre under oath at Southwark Crown Court.

Prosecutor Forster asked McIntyre to explain about the note that Brian had posted through her door informing her that she could be seen and thus inviting her to close her curtains.

Ms McIntyre put on an affected voice and tears almost immediately.

EJM: I felt stupid by the letter he put through the door in October 2007. I couldn’t bear living opposite him. I kept my curtains closed thereafter. If I ever had my curtains open I always saw him there. I felt intimidated.

The emphasis in her testimony is ours. She is claiming on oath that she kept her curtains closed thereafter. If this were true, it would mean that Brian Pead, Maya Walker and Ellen Stanley had all lied.

Then she contradicts herself by saying that if she ever had her curtains open “…I always saw him there…” She did not provide any evidence of this spurious allegation, no dates, no journal or diary entries, no log. It was a statement which had been carefully crafted to paint Brian in a bad light and her in the role of a victim – the victim of a middle-aged man who was allegedly preying on younger women.

At this point, Forster showed her some photographs of Brian’s house [exhibits PET 101 and 102] and the three windows on the upper floor. He asked her to tell the Court at which window she had seen him regularly masturbating over a period of some nine months.

EJM:          I’m not sure which window. It was usually the middle                              window. I’m just not sure.

Judge Loraine-Smith:      If you’re not sure, just say that.

Even the most casual observer of this trial would be forced to question both the competency and the validity of this witness. She claimed to have seen him masturbating at his bedroom window over a period of nine months, yet she is not even sure at which window she saw this. But, of course, there is another fundamental flaw in her tissue of lies: she had just claimed that she kept her curtains closed after she received the note in October 2007 so, if this had been true, how on earth could she then have seen him allegedly masturbating at his window with the curtains closed in her room?

Judge Loraine-Smith then interjected, “How long did you live in the house?”

One can only presume from his question that he had noticed the same contradiction in her testimony.

EJM: About six months. I went home a lot. I’m sure the banner wasn’t there on the scaffolding when we moved in.

She lied. It was clear from her previous testimony in Court and from the first of her two statements that she made to the police that she had lived at 62 Days Lane from September 2007 until June 2008. Both Ellen Stanley and Maya Walker made mention of the fact that they had seen Elizabeth McIntyre still living at the house in June 2008.

Notice how she claimed that she went home a lot and yet was never asked to provide evidence of these alleged excursions home.

Notice, too, the fact that she swiftly moved from how long she had lived in the house to attacking Brian by claiming that the scaffold banner was not on the scaffolding when she moved in to the house in September 2007.

The judge interjected again, “Was the scaffolding there when you moved in?”

EJM: Yes. It was the window to the right of the ladder where he always stood and where I saw him.

Clearly this contradicts her earlier testimony in which she claimed that she could not remember at which window on the first floor she had seen Brian (allegedly) masturbating.

Judge: There is a window to the left of the ladder and to the right of the ladder. Are you sure it was to the right of the ladder?

EJM: Yes, I’m sure. I saw him one or two times a week. He was always watching me. I saw his hand down his trousers and I shut my curtains because it’s not the sort of thing I want to see.

The window to the left of the scaffold ladder was the landing. The window to the right of the ladder was Brian’s bedroom – the room from which Maya Walker said she had seen Elizabeth McIntyre undressing and gyrating on Sunday, 18 May 2008. The witness claimed she was unsure at which window she had seen Brian, and now it appears as though she is ‘certain’. She still continues to contradict herself by saying that she saw him masturbating “…once or twice a week”. How could she have done if she had her curtains closed as she is trying to suggest to the Court?

She continues with her version of events. “…The police were first called on 6 May 2008. He put his hand down his trousers on the evening of 5 May 2008. It was dark. His right hand was down his trousers and he was touching himself. [Cries] I was horrified. I saw him masturbate for a second or two. I called the police at 1pm on 6 May 2008.”

Again this testimony is full of holes. She claims to have seen Brian masturbating on the evening of 5 May 2008. She claims that it was dark. (The two houses are almost 100 feet apart). She then claims to have seen him with his right hand down his trousers masturbating for a second or two. We do not believe that this ever happened, but for the moment we will assume that it did. If it did, it raises a number of anomalies. Firstly, how did she observe this if her curtains were closed? She claims that it was dark and so one might imagine she closed her curtains and, after all, she told the Court that she had kept her curtains closed from October 2007 onwards. This is now May 2008. Secondly, how could she see into a darkened room from such a great distance? Thirdly, Brian Pead is left-handed and not right-handed. As part of our research, we discussed this with a small sample of ten men. Two of the ten said that they were able to masturbate with the hand opposite to the one they wrote with. We acknowledge that this is an extremely small sample but we have included it here because it is possible that Brian – although very dominantly left-handed – might have been able to masturbate with his right hand. He told us that he is right-footed when playing football and that he bats right-handed when playing cricket, but that he is unable to masturbate with his right hand.

Fourthly, Elizabeth McIntyre claimed that she only saw him masturbate “…for a second or two…” If we were to assume that this is what Brian was doing, how could she be so certain from a distance of almost 100 feet away and in the dark that this is what he was doing in such a short space of time? The mind and the eyes can play tricks on all of us – what we think we see is not always what we have seen.

Fifthly, Ms McIntyre claimed that she was “…horrified…” As authors, we are disinclined to believe this in any event but we are certain that she was not horrified because she failed to call the police to report an alleged crime until the afternoon of the following day. This does not accord with someone who felt “horrified’.

She continued her testimony.

EJM: It was dark, about 8pm on 7 May 2008. Katie [Prouse] screamed when she saw him.

It is common knowledge that it is not dark at 8pm in May. The clocks had been put forward weeks previously and it did not become dark until around 8.30pm. She continues her testimony:

EJM: I don’t think he was wearing anything. I could see the top half of his body. My view stopped at waist height. I could not see his penis. I only had a glance. I can’t remember seeing it – I’m not sure. I was sitting on my bed.

Again, this piece of testimony is full of holes. She uses the word ‘think’ – “…I don’t think he was wearing anything…” If she was certain that she had seen him masturbating, one might imagine she could be as certain whether he was clothed or not. If she could see “…only the top half of his body…” how could she see if he was masturbating or not? If she “…only had a glance…” how could she tell whether he was naked below the waist or not? And how could she tell if he was masturbating? Then she claims that she can’t really remember much about the incident. Finally, she claims that she was sitting on her bed. If this were true, this would restrict her view considerably. The windowsills in Brian’s bedroom were relatively high as we have discussed previously and the ceiling in the bay window very low, so it would have been impossible for him to stand on a chair to display himself.

But, even more significantly, she claims that she did not see his genitals. Thus, two out of the three witnesses (Natalie Ryan and Elizabeth McIntyre) have now stated in open court that they had not seen his genitals.

We make no apology for reiterating at this point [in fact we feel that it is our duty to do so] the legal definition of Exposure (as defined in Archbold, 2008 Edition, page 2009):

“…Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.66

Exposure: 66(1) – A person commits an offence if

(a)  he intentionally exposes his genitals; and

(b)  he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress…”

                                         

We believe that it must be clear by now that this charge has been brought spuriously by the police and Crown Prosecution Service. Two of the three females in the four-female house have stated in open court that they had not seen Brian’s genitals. It is now likely that the third witness will say the same since it would be extremely difficult for her to try to show that she saw his genitals but not the other two witnesses.

For Brian to have been guilty of this offence, two things have to be established: (i) that he intentionally exposed his genitals and (ii) that he intended that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.

It is doubtful how the CPS could ever have believed that Brian met either of these criteria, let alone both of them. It is highly unlikely, we believe, that in a situation such as this, that Brian would (or could) have exposed his genitals and that even if he had that he would intentionally cause alarm or distress.

We hope that by now you are asking yourself “How did this case ever come to Court?”

The reason is that it has been deliberately and maliciously added to the Incitement charge – which has no witness – for the following reasons:

(i)                the CPS can bring real witnesses into court, all female and all alleging sexual misbehaviour against a grey-haired middle-aged defendant

(ii)              the jury will become biased against the defendant because of the plethora of sexual allegations

(iii)            the jury might say, “Well, if he isn’t guilty of this one, he must be guilty of the other”

(iv)            the CPS are using this case to give the appearance of a real trial and a real jury

(v)              if the CPS lose this case (and it must be obvious to the reader by now that this sham was designed to fail) then much damage has been achieved against Brian’s reputation because although they are claiming not to have seen his penis, they are all alleging that they saw him masturbating

(vi)            by deliberately losing this case, the CPS makes it seem that the jury was genuine because people will say “If they found him not guilty of Exposure and guilty of Incitement, it must be true”

(vii)          by bringing this specious case against Brian, it increases the length of the trial against Brian and wears him down

(viii)        by bringing this case, it encourages his family, friends, neighbours and colleagues to doubt his reputation.  

Elizabeth McIntyre continues her testimony. “I couldn’t face going out. I didn’t want to live there anymore.”

Now, we must consider that she claimed she had first witnessed Brian masturbating at his window in October 2007. If she genuinely didn’t want to live there anymore, why did she stay in 62 Days Lane until June 2008? And in June 2008, Maya Walker stated that she had seen Elizabeth McIntyre going out in hot pants in the rain – hardly the actions of someone who “…couldn’t face going out…”

It appears from the evidence (if the evidence can be trusted) that the police failed to call at 62 Days Lane soon after the first telephone call had allegedly been made to them at 1pm on 6 May 2008. The police were allegedly called again at 7.14pm on 7 May 2008.

We, as authors, and Brian Pead as the defendant, have made numerous Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain the tapes of these alleged telephone calls made to the police. It will come as no surprise to you, perhaps, that these tapes have never surfaced.

But there is another interesting fact about these dates, something which the judge commented upon: “…When did you make your statement to the police?

EJM: On 19 May 2008.

Judge: Was it the first time you told your story to the police?

EJM: Yes. I made another statement on 20 May 2008.

The question has to be asked, “Why did it take from 6 May until the 19 May 2008 for the police to take statements from Ms McIntyre and two of the other occupants of the house?” and “Why did Ms McIntyre make two statements to the police?”

We will explain.

It is our belief that Brian Pead was already a ‘person of interest’ to the police, but not for the usual reasons such as being a criminal. He was now 55 years of age and not had a conviction or any sexual allegations against him (and after a 23-year career in teaching). He was a person of interest because of his investigation into Faceparty.com and into who was controlling child pornography in the UK. We must reiterate at this point that we are assured that Brian has not researched child pornography itself, but the factors surrounding it, especially after he stumbled across a chatroom on Faceparty apparently trading such material.

The police were interested in him because we believe that they knew he was investigating illegal activity on the Faceparty.com website and thus his name was flagged up on the PNC (the police national computer).

If these alleged calls were made, the police then had to buy some time to consider their next moves against Brian.

If, as we believe, these calls were not made (because they have not been produced), the alleged calls and transcripts of the calls and eventual witness statements were created ‘out of thin air’ by the police in order to further defame Brian and create a ‘shock and awe’ campaign against him (which is precisely what did occur).

We have had sight of the witness statement allegedly made by Elizabeth Joy McIntyre on 19 May 2008. We have also had sight of the witness statement made by Elizabeth Joy McIntyre on 20 May 2008.

Neither of these statements is signed by Ms McIntyre and neither statement has been signed by any witness. Under the Criminal Procedure Rules, these statements are inadmissible as evidence.

The reason Ms McIntyre allegedly made a second statement is that she changed the window at which she allegedly saw Brian masturbating. She had claimed on 19 May that she had seen him at his bedroom window which, looking from her window, would have been the third window on the right.

In her alleged statement on 20 May 2008 – the same date on which Brian was arrested for Exposure – she changed the window to the bedroom which was being used as a tool storage room, the window to the left.

The statements which we have had sight of are not only inadmissible as evidence in a court of law, but they force us to question why the judge, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, Timothy Forster (the prosecutor) Pamela Brain (previous defence counsel), Dominic Bell (defence counsel), Laurie Smith (solicitor, Nelson, Guest and Partners), Sinem Ibrahim (solicitor, Nelson, Guest and Partners), Stephen Nelson (partner, Nelson, Guest and Partners), Angela Shaw (solicitor, AA Mirsons) and Adam Mir (partner, AA Mirsons) all failed to miss the fact that no trial should ever have been commenced upon such evidently false evidence.

It ought to be remembered that on 8 May 2008, Brian Pead had written to the Employment Appeal Tribunal about his unlawful suspension and subsequent dismissal by Lambeth Council after dismissing a female teacher for grooming female pupils at the OLCVS pupil referral unit in Vauxhall.

We believe that it is far too coincidental to imagine that the events in which Brian now found himself – embroiled in sexual allegations against him and with evidence being fabricated against him – were all unrelated. Having considered all of the evidence – and lack of evidence - we believe that Brian had been made a scapegoat for all that he had uncovered in his research.

Needless to say, the alleged witness statement of Natalie Ryan was also unsigned by her and not witnessed.        

Elizabeth McIntyre was then cross-examined by Dominic Bell, who was making a great pretence of defending his client but who was actually working against his client.

Bell: You went to Sidcup Police Station and made a statement on 19 May 2008. What did you tell them?

McIntyre: I saw him watching me. I kept my curtains closed the whole time. Me and Katie now live together elsewhere after moving out. I think Christine Holloway was in on the evenings of masturbation.

As we have previously explained, Christine Holloway was the fourth female living in the house at 62 Days Lane. It appears that she never made a statement or at least we can state that we have never seen such a statement from her. Yet notice how Bell does not ask McIntyre about Christine Holloway, and instead moves his cross-examination on to another topic.

Bell: I’m suggesting you didn’t see him masturbate.

McIntyre: No, I did.

Bell: Your call to the police didn’t even mention that you saw him masturbating.

McIntyre: I didn’t see his genital area, but I knew what he was doing. I can’t remember about the curtains.

Bell: You have told the Court earlier that after receiving the note from my client in October 2007, you kept your curtains closed from then onwards. So how did you come to see my client allegedly masturbating if your curtains were closed? 

McIntyre: I can’t explain why my curtains were open on 7 May when he was masturbating. I think I’d forgotten to shut my curtains.  I just want all this over with.

In an attempt to elicit the sympathy of the Court, she cries at this point. It should be remembered that she has not signed any statement and that she allegedly made her statements some two weeks after the alleged incident.

Bell: I will be as swift as I can. Why did you display yourself in your bedroom window and why did you undress for him?

McIntyre: Why would I undress for him? He’s an old man – it’s disgusting.

Notice how McIntyre uses the opportunity – she would have been coached well by Forster and the police – to call Brian an ‘old man’ and to use such pejorative language as ‘disgusting’.

At this point, the judge asked, “Did you ever notice some young men next door to the defendant?”

McIntyre: No.

Not only is that response from McIntyre completely unbelievable because three young men aged between 20-26 lived opposite them and the young men were always going to work, calling taxis to be driven to night-clubs and putting golf clubs in their cars and so on. It is inconceivable that the females at 62 Days Lane could have failed to see these young men.

But what is even more remarkable is that neither the judge nor defence counsel called McIntyre’s answer into question. The trial was a pretence.

Bell: My client has said that there was a particular pattern in respect of the curtains – that you would close the curtains to the right-hand window as my client saw it and leave the curtains open on the left-hand window and then undress and gyrate. What do you say to this?

McIntyre: I didn’t think he would see me if one curtain was closed. He’s a dirty old man. It’s not true I undressed in that room. Why would I do that? I’m not a lapdancer.

This response clearly undermines her own earlier testimony in which she had claimed that she kept her curtains closed at all times after the ‘note’ had been delivered. Notice how she uses the opportunity to call Brian ‘a dirty old man’ and how she claims that she never undressed in that room. This is contradicted by Maya Walker’s statement – but Bell failed to call her.

Bell: Are you an exhibitionist?

McIntyre: No.

Bell: Why did you keep the letter if it made you feel so uncomfortable?

McIntyre: I thought I was being stupid. So it was proof.

Bell: At no stage did you see his penis?

McIntyre: No.

She cries at this point. We suggest that these were ‘crocodile tears’. In any event, Judge Loraine-Smith said, “Thank you. The sooner you leave the Court the better.”

The jury filed out of Court at 11.35 with an instruction to resume at midday.

Outside at recess, Bell met his client. “She said she didn’t see your penis. That’s two out of three,” he said, still playing the game of charades. “The jury will be shown a video of you logging on to MSN and adding Shelley14. We won’t resume at midday after all, but 2pm.”

After Brian had spoken briefly with his defence counsel, he noticed a tall, bearded male enter Court. Not having seen him before, Brian was keen to meet him and ask him who he was and what his purpose for being in Court was. “I’m from the Central News Agency.”

Being a cub reporter at the age of 17, this interested Brian and so he asked, “Tell me, why are you here if there are reporting restrictions?”

“Well, we’ve received a call about this trial…”

“Where from?”

“From Scotland Yard. Their press office.”

“You mean to tell me that the police have called your agency and told them there’s this trial?”

“Yes, but we also get news of trials from the courts themselves. Even where there are reporting restrictions.”

“You’re kidding me? You mean to tell me that even where there are supposed to be reporting restrictions in place, you’re still alerted and you still attend court and come ‘sniffing around’?”

“Of course.”

He had been extremely helpful to Brian and the two men shook hands, the reporter leaving the court.

Inside the courtroom, the middle-aged male officer purporting to be the ‘girl’ known as Shelley14 was showing a DVD to Forster and Bell and a female officer. He spoke in soft Scottish tones. This allegedly showed Brian’s interactions with Shelley14 from 14 January 2008.

It should be noted that all of this activity should have been achieved weeks before the ‘trial’. It was not lost on Brian that he was ‘allowed’ to witness this activity in a weak attempt by the prosecution to erode Brian’s confidence.

 The middle-aged Scot said, “This is the time and date he added me on 14 January. And a whole lot of other people asked to join, too.”

Brian noticed at this point that Forster continued to be accompanied by his entourage, whilst Bell was working alone. One of the fundamental principles of both civil and criminal justice is what is known as ‘equality of arms’ or, in other words, both sides having the same access to support. Brian couldn’t understand why Bell was always working alone.

Bell and Brian watched the instant capture software DVD on the officer’s laptop. It showed the officer logging on to MSN Messenger as Shelley14 (note the second ‘e’ in Shelley).

Brian watched the screen intently. He watched as the officer posing as the ‘girl’ typed to a random person, “only had comp since xmas” at 14:40.

Brian noticed that the word Christmas had been contracted to ‘xmas’ and he also noticed that “only had comp since” had been typed in full, with no vowels omitted.

A random person calling himself Tony said, “You didn’t do that pic of you,” which caught Brian’s attention. These brief encounters had shown Brian that something was odd here – there were no vowels omitted and a completely different man had told the ‘girl’ that she hadn’t taken the picture that she had allegedly uploaded. Brian had also stated this both to the ‘girl’ and also to the police in interview.

Brian also noticed that the officer posing as a ‘girl’ sent a message to Brian first. This was a feature of all but one of their conversations – that the ‘girl’ always made contact first. This is hardly the behaviour of someone who was interested in making contact with a ‘girl’.

Whilst still watching the DVD, Brian’s attention was drawn to a message between Shelley14 and someone calling himself ‘VWTony’. The ‘girl’ typed “Do you still want to meet?”

This confirmed to Brian that the ‘female’ was making the running. He had believed that the police were acting as agents provocateurs, something which is illegal.

At this point Dominic Bell asked to see session disk 15 as well as the session 16 disk they were watching. Brian wondered why Bell had not asked for this before the trial during the process of Disclosure. As authors, we are inclined to say that this is an abuse of process in itself.

At 2pm, the jury filed in and witness Katie Prouse took the oath. Living in Plymouth, Katie Prouse (@PrincessKatie44 on Twitter) describes herself as a Scenic Artist for the Theatre Royal in that town and ‘passionate about music, theatre, movies and sunny days.’

Forster asked her about the note that Brian had posted through the door at 62 Days Lane to inform the girl in the upstairs bedroom that she could be seen undressing at an open window.

Prouse: I was shown a letter a month after it was posted through the door.

One is forced to ask why – if this is true, which we doubt – Elizabeth McIntyre would wait a full month before showing the note to her “best friend”.

“It mentioned a house across the road,” continued Prouse.  Liz said she was worried about a house across the road and that there was someone watching her, so she shut her curtains.”

Forster: How did it affect her?

Prouse: She was embarrassed. [She reads through the note] I thought the letter was creepy. I told Liz to keep her curtains closed. I said I’ll take her into college everyday rather than her walking alone.

[Authors’ note: This was probably said in order to introduce the idea that Brian was capable of stalking a young woman.]

Forster: Did you have any other conversations with her about this?

Prouse: Not until May 2008. I gave her lifts for a year. There were some small conversations about the man on the way to college.

[Authors’ note: If she gave McIntyre lifts for a year, this contradicts McIntyre’s claim that she stayed for only four months. It is also difficult to believe that not one of the females in the house informed the police, their fathers, brothers, boyfriends, or the landlord about Brian’s alleged behaviour.]

Forster: Did her attitude change?

Prouse: She became more reserved. She toned herself down. She’d spend more time downstairs than in her bedroom.

Forster: Had you ever seen him?

Prouse: No, my room is at the back of the house. One night about 11.30, I went to Liz’s room. She was in her pyjamas and on her bed.

Forster: What happened next?

Prouse: For 2-3 seconds I saw a naked male opposite.

Forster: We have some photos and a bundle of drawings. Please turn to Exhibit 4 labelled KCP1. Is the sketch yours?

Prouse: Yes.

Forster: Have you seen it before?

Prouse: Yes.

Forster: You glanced for 2-3 seconds. Where was he standing? You are pointing to the left-hand window on the first floor. You said he was naked. How much of his body did you see?

Prouse: To his hips.

Forster: Was he wearing any clothing?

Prouse: Not that I could see. The lighting was good, so I would have been able to see. He had the light on. I couldn’t see what he was doing, but his arms were doing this [shows masturbating]. I can’t remember. I had a quick glance. I was more scared than anything else. I shouted, “I can see somebody!”

Notice how Prouse claims that the lighting was good, whereas McIntyre claimed it was dark.

Forster: Why did you recoil?

Prouse: I was embarrassed – it’s not what you expect to see. I had no idea who it was.

Forster: Going back to the letter. Did you know the house?

Prouse: Yes, I knew the house. There was scaffolding all across the front of it. I was crying.

Forster: Why were you crying?

At this point, the tall, bearded newspaper reporter entered the court room.

Prouse: Liz said she could still see him and shut the curtains. I told her to call the police. She called them immediately after she came into my room. I was present when she made the call. We sat up all night in her bedroom.

Notice how this does not match anything that has been previously stated by her house-mates. The phonecall to the police was allegedly made at 1pm the next day. If ‘Liz’ closed her curtains, it proves that they were open and yet ‘Liz’ had claimed that she kept them closed at night.

Prouse: I would never be able to recognise him though. I left the house in June 2008.

In fact, the four students left at the end of the one-year contract. Dominic Bell then began his cross-examination.

Bell: The letter. Are you saying that you were not aware of it?

Prouse: Not at first. She was in the habit of leaving her curtains open. I wouldn’t say she was an exhibitionist, though.

Bell: Look at photograph PET102 [a photograph of Brian’s house]. Do you recognise this?

Prouse: Yes, it’s his house.

Bell: And you saw him at his bedroom window on the night in question?

Prouse: (resistant) I haven’t said which window I saw him at. I didn’t see his penis. I’m sure he was naked though. I didn’t see his genitals.

And Bell stopped his cross-examination. The third female had now stated on the Court record that she had not, after all, seen Brian’s genitals. All three witnesses had not seen them, yet to be found guilty of exposure as we have seen, they would have had to have seen his genitals and he must have had the intent to cause them alarm and distress.

Forster chose not to re-examine. There was nothing to be gained. Prouse left the stand and the court.

Forster’s attention moved to the Incitement case. ‘On count 2, I now call Detective Constable Shaun Robbie.”

Judge: Are we moving to the computer conversations?

Forster: Yes.

DC Robbie swears on the bible.

Forster: Can you please tell the court what you do for a living?

Robbie: I work in the hi-tech Paedophile Unit.

Forster: What were your duties between December 2007 and May 2008?

Notice how these dates almost exactly coincide with Brian’s investigation into Faceparty.com and his belief that the police were acting illegally on that website.

Robbie: I have 25 years’ experience and 10 years in the Paedophile Unit. We would deploy ourselves as children. We were rooting out people seeking pictures or making arrangements to meet.

Foster: Would you pretend to be a paedophile?

Robbie: Yes, the main aim was to find people who wished to abuse children.

[Authors’ note: This confirms precisely what Brian had told DS Tunn and DC Godfrey in his interview at Charing Cross police station.]

Forster: What rules do you have to abide by?

Robbie: We have to attend a number of courses. The guidelines are printed within course documents. The main one is we are not allowed to work as an agent provocateur. We are not meant to entice anyone to commit an offence they would otherwise not have committed.

[Authors’ note: Even though those rules exist, it does not prove that the police were not acting as agents provocateurs. After all, police officers are disciplined every day of the year for misdemeanours and some are even sent to prison for crimes they have committed.]

Forster: How would you portray yourself as a child?

Robbie: We would set up a number of profiles on different social networking sites such as Faceparty and Netlog.

Forster: How do you set up a profile?

Robbie: Faceparty is a free website. You give your name, date of birth and a postcode.

Forster: What’s the minimum you have to do to join?

Robbie: You gave your name, date of birth and your postcode. These details do not have to be real.

Forster: Did the Faceparty website state that you had to be 16 to join?

Robbie: Yes, you couldn’t join if you were under 16.

Notice what Robbie has told the Court: that to become a member a person had to be at least 16 years of age. This has important ramifications for Brian’s trial because if this was true – and it had been corroborated by Brian and the police - then no-one could reasonably have been expected to think that some-one portraying themselves as 14 was really that age and thus the trial would be over and Brian acquitted. The trial had to be conducted to the criminal standard – beyond reasonable doubt. There was clearly huge doubt here – no-one, let alone Brian – could have believed this ‘girl’ to be 14 when the site declared that no-one under 16 could become a member. The Judge was alive to this point and asked, “So it actually says you have to be 16 to join?”

Robbie: Yes.

At this point, then, there could only be one possible outcome – that Brian would be acquitted because he was clearly innocent. But Robbie added a caveat in order to undermine Brian’s testimony, but in adding such a caveat, he then gave an indication of precisely what Brian believed the police had been up to.

Robbie: Nothing had to be genuine in those days. The postcode was not checked. I used the name of Shelley14. I sometimes used Knight as a surname. I added, 14, south London, and left a contact email address, your Honour.

I put on my profile ‘I’m Shelley14, I don’t know what else to say.’

I had a picture of a schoolgirl and a girl in sports clothing.

We would try to vary it. We went on after 4pm to replicate a child. We didn’t go online during the day in term time.

I used textspeak. I dropped every vowel.

I recorded everything going on. The system we use records your every mouse click.

[Authors’ note: Robbie has confirmed all that Brian told police under interview.]

Judge: Did anybody try to contact you about school or sport?

Notice how the judge is acting almost as a second prosecutor. The role of a judge is not to act in this way. His (or her) role is merely to act as an arbitrator – or referee – in respect of the law itself, to ensure that the trial is fair to both sides and that any legal points can be addressed.

Robbie: I registered on Faceparty on December 13. I left an email address because I didn’t have to go through Faceparty to chat all the time. Some males were phoned by female officers.

I would log in as showing offline, so I could see who was online, whom I wished to talk to or not wish to talk to.

You could put a name or a phrase into MSN. I put in Shelley14. Email addresses need not be genuine. We would accept an invitation to be a friend and show our status as online. We tried to look at their profile first. We wanted to buy time. On 14 January 2008, I was online as Shelley14. We were recording the session. I went on to MSN and there was an invite from the defendant.

[Authors’ note: Notice how Robbie has given his name as Shelley14. Notice that he had previously stated that he sometimes went online as ‘Shelly-K14’. This is precisely what Brian had noticed. He had noticed – because he is (in his own words) somewhat anally retentive about language – that he would sometimes be communicating with ‘shelley14’, at other times ‘shelly14’ and at other times ‘shelleyk-14’. The difference between ‘Shelley” and ‘Shelly’ was not missed by Brian. Yet, perversely, all these different email addresses would communicate with him as if they were the same person. Brian came to the conclusion that the person pretending to be a 14-year-old female was using multiple email addresses in order to entice older people to commit offences. Using one or another of these addresses, the person would act responsibly and behave well, whereas when using a different email address, the ‘girl’ would misbehave and act as an agent provocateur.

On 28 January 2013, some research on a website called TeenSpot.com brought up a profile with the name of ‘Shellyk14’. It showed the very same picture that had been used on Faceparty in 2008. The ‘female’ gave her age as 19. But the photograph used on the website is that of a schoolgirl in uniform.

However, in the About Me section, it reads “…Hiya im shelly shells to ma m8s 14 from London I lik music n hanging wiv m8s dunno wot els 2 say ask for email mite giv 2 u x …”

This is remarkably similar to the methodology used by DC Robbie and others on the Faceparty website in 2008 in terms of the precise language being used and also the omission of certain vowels!

Judge: Could you see any other details about the person?

Robbie: No.

Forster: Were other people requesting to speak with you?

Robbie: I can’t be sure.

[Authors’ note: Why can’t he be sure? He just said he was recording the session! If he was genuinely recording the session, then he would be able to provide a definitive answer.]

Robbie: I accepted his invitation. He then appeared in my list of friends.  He would get a message saying I’d accepted. There was no message along with the invite. At 4.13pm on 28 January 2008, there was initial contact.

[Authors’ note: This was the same day that Brian had attended the Employment Tribunal in West Croydon, where he had taken Lambeth Council to a Hearing.]

At this point there was a short break and the trial resumed at 3.15pm, when Robbie commenced his testimony.

Robbie: I started online about 5 minutes before contact was made. I changed my MSN status to available and we began a conversation.

At this point, DC Robbie reads out the words he had typed in this conversation while Forster reads Brian’s words. They are playing to the gallery.

Robbie: I said about a computer at Christmas to portray myself as a child on the internet. I wanted to portray myself as shy and naïve. I wanted to portray restrictive parents.

I was certainly talking to others and he could have been talking to others, but I wouldn’t know.

We often used a tactic to withdraw from the conversation. He left a number. I didn’t know if the number was genuine.

[Authors’ note: Why would he not know? It is his job to check.]

Forster: Why do you give people a real phone number if you can’t answer it as a man?

Robbie: To test. We wanted him to text us.

One of the operation team would have tried the false number he provided.

[Authors’ note: So Robbie did know the number that Brian left was false. Notice that Brian had never texted or called the number the ‘girl’ left.]

Forster: I’m going to ask you about two further contacts. The first is a call the defendant made in April 2008.

Robbie: Yes, on 26 April 2008 at 18:22 he called the number we had left. The call was not answered.

[Authors’ note: There was no proof of this alleged phone call. Dominic Bell failed to contact Virgin Mobile to ask for a copy of the mobile phone records for the mobile that Brian possessed at this period in his life. The police had an unsigned statement from someone claiming to be from Virgin Mobile, but the witness statement – like those of McIntyre, Ryan, Prouse and Robbie – did not contain a unique reference number (URN).]  

Forster: And on 8 May 2008, did he leave a message on Faceparty entitled ‘Cash4U’?

Robbie: This was an internal message from the defendant to me. He asked if I still wanted cash for sex.

It is clear to us as authors that there were several discrepancies in Robbie’s testimony, whereas Brian had consistently claimed that all he had done was act in the manner of a responsible citizen who had seen unsavoury activities taking place on a website (this has been corroborated by a large number of others via blogs) and that he had merely been ‘smoking out’ this person pretending to be a teenager and in order to do that, he naturally had to ask questions. But asking questions does not necessarily show a person’s intent.

The jury left the court at 4.30pm.

At this point, Brian made notes in his journal to his counsel. He made a note about reporting restrictions and the fact that case 2 (Incitement) is on the internet, and that he had lost seven lodgers because the trial was on the internet and accessible to all jurors. Realistically, this fact alone meant that Brian could not have a fair trial.

Brian stayed in the dock, where he heard Forster and Bell discussing “Does exposure mean you have to display your genitals?”

It appeared to Brian that this was nonsense and had been designed to unsettle him. Both Forster and Bell were seasoned professionals and even a lay person with a cursory glance at a copy of Archbold would soon establish that both men ought to know that the debate they were engaging was pointless because even Brian – as a lay person – knew that exposure meant you had to display your genitals and have the necessary intent to cause alarm or distress.

Outside Court, Bell told his client that the prosecution might drop charge one because none of the girls saw his genitals – they all stated this, so there couldn’t possibly have been exposure.

Brian said he wanted the jury dismissed, because they were biased by virtue of the fact that they had heard the exposure case and they would therefore be prejudiced against him in the incitement case (just as Judge Byers had said at Woolwich back in February). Bell added that he would try to get the jury dismissed because Brian could no longer get a fair trial.

“If this happens,” said Bell, “a new trial will go into next year (2010). And another thing. The prosecution are calling Nicola Noone tomorrow. Can you prepare a range of questions that you think I should ask her?”

[Authors’ note: Yes, the defence barrister did just ask his client to prepare questions in the middle of his own trial!]

Brian left the Court and arranged to meet Maya Walker in Walthamstow, near to where she lived. She drove him to a nearby internet café and they sat down and prepared a list of questions which Brian emailed to Angela Shaw, who then sent them on to Bell. That Brian was asked to compile such a list of questions himself is appalling, we feel, and it shows a negligent and dismissive attitude on the part of Bell towards his client’s case.

As is his character, Brian created a list of some 45 questions which were typed out by Maya Walker. Space does not permit us to include the entire list here, but we will reproduce what Brian regarded as the most critical questions to be asked of the Administrative Director of the Hackney charity known as Off Centre:

1.          Can you tell us what sorts of problems you were advertising on the website as offering help with?

(Drugs, alcohol, sexual abuse)

2.         Did Brian have his own work station?

(Yes)

3.         How did he access this?

(Specific username and password)

4.        Where did all the information and research that he typed get stored?

(Central server)

5.         Was this computer seized by police?

(Yes)

6.        Do you know if anything inappropriate was ever found on it?

(No, it was not.)

7.         Where is this computer now?

(Returned to Off Centre)

8.        So, if someone went to another workstation – say in Reception – and logged on as Brian with his password a day after his arrest and his work computer was seized, that person should be able to access all his files, shouldn’t they?

(Yes)

9.      But when a member of staff did this the next day, they couldn’t access all his files and research into counselling theories. How would you explain this?

(There is no explanation other than that skulduggery was at play.)

10.     Are you aware of Brian being asked to undertake staff training at all?

(Yes)

11.       What was this training about?

(Child sexual abuse)

12.      Who was the Staff training designed for?

(Off Centre staff and Sub19 staff)

13.      Do you know when he delivered this training?

(Friday 28 March 2008)

14.     If someone is asked to deliver staff training, do you think it reasonable that a conscientious member of staff with the organisation’s best interests at heart would thoroughly research the subject?

(Yes)

15.      Brian sent a letter to all staff at Off Centre and Sub19 – why did no-one assist him?

(According to Maya Walker, staff were prevented by Nicola Noone from assisting Brian in order to ‘protect the reputation of Off Centre’.)

16.     Even though child sexual abuse wasn’t in his Job Description, could he be expected to do some research on the subject for the benefit of his colleagues and clients? After all, you declared on the website that Off Centre was offering help with sexual abuse.

(Yes)

Having typed out the questions and emailed them to Angela Shaw at AA Mirsons, Maya Walker drove Brian home from Walthamstow to Sidcup. But, in a portent of events to come, she did not stay the night and drove straight back to east London.