45
Friday, 18 December 2009
It is in the public domain that there was a severe snowstorm across
London during the night and on the morning of the 18 December 2008. There were
no B13 buses running along Days Lane, so Brian walked to the station. He called
in at the Co-op in Halfway Street on his way and bought a Daily Mail from Fay,
the cheery assistant.
Many trains were cancelled or delayed, but Brian arrived at London
Bridge just after 9am and he bought a hot chocolate
at Pret.
He arrived at Court at 9.35am and sat outside Court 4, making notes in
his journal.
At 10.25 prosecutor Forster informed him that Bell would not be in Court until 11.30am. This was
nothing new. Defence counsel had been late every day. What does a barrister say
to his client by arriving late each day to Court?
Brian went to the restaurant on the first floor. He received a call
from Maya Walker and a text offering support.
A few minutes later, his newly-made friend, Mandy Rawsthorne, a fitness and physical
education instructor at Sidcup Adult Education Centre texted him offering support.
In a flurry of texts like the flurry of snow falling across the Thames
outside the Court, Brian received a text from Michael Bird, his former supervising
counsellor at the Community Drug Service in Wallington, Surrey. He was cancelling
his appearance due to the severe snow.
By 10:55, Brian had not heard anything from his friend John Callow. He imagined that Callow
would make his way to Court anyway, even if the trial were to be delayed
because Bell or jurors might be delayed.
Brian made some notes in his court journal. We reproduce them here:
“…POINTS FOR DOMINIC BELL
1.
Geoff Bacon’s computer seized 7 weeks after my arrest – still nothing found
2.
Nothing doctored by GB or Brian on his hard
drive
3.
I MUST mention my own abuse – it is the very essence of my case
4.
I want to mention my arrest and beating in July
this year by four
officers from Bexley Police
5.
What do I say if I can’t remember things?
6.
Do I mention my client last night and her sexual
issues?
7.
What can I take on the stand? Photos of grand- children/ my folder
of certificates/ the seduction of children
book/ my folder?
8.
I only slept 3 hours last night and cried about
my grand-children…”
He was missing his grand-children immensely. And he believed that they
were missing him, too. It has been well documented here that it was common
knowledge that Brian deeply loved his grand-children and that they were always
in his mind. He did not lavish money or presents on them, but he did give them
his time and they knew that he understood them very well and that he was a
‘safe haven’.
At 11:35 DC Julia Godfrey approached Brian and told him that his
barrister would “be here at noon.”
At 11:45, he arrived and told his client that he was going to enter a half-time
submission of no evidence. “If there is no case on Count 1, then the judge will
be forced to discharge this jury on Count 2. But if he rules against me, then I
will have to present your case, you’ll need to go on the stand for about an
hour, hour and a half and then the prosecution will cross-examine you.”
To Brian’s way of thinking (and ours), there was no other possible
outcome than an acquittal and that the trial would be over, he could leave
court and hopefully celebrate Christmas with his grand-children and re-build
the strained relationship with his daughter, who had once told her father that
when he sold his house, he could live with them until he found somewhere
alternative accommodation. Neither his daughter nor her husband had doubted
Brian until the police overwhelmed them with ‘evidence’ that he was a sex offender.
This book will hopefully prove beyond all doubt his innocence in these matters.
In the
courtroom, the judge rebuked Bell for his lateness.
Bell: I have a submission, your
honour.
Judge: Any
skeleton argument?
Bell: No, only two lines.
In order for the trial to be halted and the jury dismissed, it was the
defence counsel’s responsibility to produce a skeleton argument with numbered
reasons why the trial should be stopped. A two-line submission is completely
unacceptable. Not only was his (former) client’s reputation at stake, but also his
liberty. It is evident that Bell was only ‘going through the motions’. A
barrister who was keen to seek an acquittal for his client would have been up
all night preparing the skeleton argument. He had also had a considerable
amount of time in the morning in which to prepare such an argument.
Detective
Constable Shaun Robbie was recalled.
Bell: Were you still operating in
2008?
Robbie: Yes.
Bell: Do you still have your
notebook with you? I want to ask you about the 15 May 2008. Were you on duty
that day? Were you deployed as “Shelley”?
It should be considered at this point that these questions ought to
have been asked of Robbie when he first appeared on the stand.
Furthermore, he should have been asked to provide his logbooks during the
disclosure process. It was unacceptable that this cross-examination was
necessary at this stage of the trial.
Robbie: (looks at log) No. I did on
8 May 2008, 12 May 2008 and 16 May 2008, but not 15 May 2008.
Notice that Robbie could be saying anything – he has not been
asked by the judge or Bell to show a copy of his alleged logbooks of the
time he spent online to them or to Brian, the defendant. This is unacceptable
practice, too.
Defence counsel being finished with Robbie, the prosecution took an
opportunity to try to further defame Brian.
Forster: How many statements have you
made between 30 June 2008 to 28 January 2009?
Robbie: I made two different
statements.
Forster: Prior to making your
statements what did you consult?
Notice how Forster fails to ask why Robbie made two different statements.
Robbie: I consulted logs, phone
calls, transcripts. I have 10 lines about the defendant from 9 or 10 books.
Forster: Is there a note in your book
about 8 May 2008 Faceparty message?
Robbie: Yes … on 12 May 2008 I
received two messages on Faceparty. I never received one on the
15 May 2008.
This was a tactical manoeuvre by the prosecution to confuse the Court.
Brian had never stated that he had sent a message to ‘Shelly14’ but that the
‘girl’ had sent him a private chat.
It was in this private chat applet that he had said in front of Geoffrey Bacon, “You are a fake! Fuck off!”
Now notice how the judge interjects:
Judge: This is a computer. If a message was sent to you, then there
would be a record.
Robbie: I have no record of that MSN log on 15 May 2008.
Notice how the court-wise Robbie avoids the real question. Brian had maintained
all along that he had received a message from ‘shelly14’ on Faceparty, not on MSN, but Robbie avoids that question and states that there was
no record of a conversation on MSN. Small details like this are
usually most critical. Robbie was perverting the course of justice by not
revealing the whole truth and the information which, we say, he must have been
privy to.
Judge: If it
was sent, it would be held on
computer.
Robbie: If we were both online at
the same time, I could see the message.
Judge: I think you should look
at that computer to see if that message was sent.
Forster: Subject to that check, my
case is closed.
Did you notice the sleight of hand present in that exchange? The judge
states that if a message was sent, there would be a digital footprint of it on
the computer which Brian last used: the one belonging to his friend, Geoffrey
Bacon. A digital footprint was left on that computer which was why
Tunn and Godfrey unlawfully seized it and burnt out the hard
drive before returning it.
The judge appeared to be conducting a fair trial, but he wasn’t – that
computer ought to have been checked many months before the trial ever took
place. The CPS ought to
have conducted that investigation and Dominic Bell most certainly ought to have done. Notice,
too, how the date of 15 May is mentioned but never discussed. And it was not
discussed because it would open a can of worms about police corruption and
criminal behaviour by the police in unlawfully seizing the Bacon computer and
burning out the hard drive.
At 12.25, the jury left the courtroom. There then ensued a most
remarkable debate of what we can only describe as legal nonsense.
Dominic Bell put up the argument that there was no evidence
and no case to answer. “Masturbation in public” he ventured, “is a Common Law
offence of outraging public decency.”
He then read out the offence of outraging public decency. Bell told the judge that the jury needs to be
properly directed.
“Outraging public decency needs to be done in public or private with
at least two people seeing it. If a man stands at his bedroom window
masturbating, the appropriate charge would have been outraging public decency. From
the evidence there is no mention of witnesses seeing the defendant’s genitals.
Katie Prouse said she saw him masturbating.”
This man was supposed to be defending his (former) client robustly. We
believe that this is an appalling piece of dialogue in open court. But it gets
significantly worse (and significantly more farcical) when the judge joins in
the debate.
Judge: The CPS elected
this charge but have they made out a charge in the evidence?
Bell: There is no evidence that he
was displaying his genitals. Is it enough for exposure?
This is a ridiculous interlude in a criminal trial. The fact remains
that the Law states that Brian is innocent of a charge of exposure. This debate
is totally pointless.
Judge: Can I put it more starkly? If man A exposes himself to woman B,
who is blind, then he still has committed an offence. Just because they didn’t
see his penis doesn’t make him Not Guilty.
[Authors’ note: Actually, it
DOES make him not guilty. The law is very clear on exposure: that a man must
expose his genitals and they must be seen and the intent must be to cause alarm
or distress.]
Bell: The Oxford English
Dictionary definition of exposure is publicly displaying one’s genitals.
We have to question why, in a Court of law, defence counsel is
referring to a linguistic definition of exposure when he ought to refer to
Archbold or a
similar publication, which he knows. Why is Loraine-Smith allowing this farce in his courtroom?
Judge: You’re saying that if what he did was not possibly seen, then
it’s intent. There is evidence that he was masturbating.
[Authors’ note: It does not
follow that there was intent. Nor does it follow that Brian ever masturbated.
The female witnesses have not, in our opinion, done themselves any favours.]
Bell: Look at the photograph taken
on 24 May 2008. I invite the judge to
pay regard to the defendant at the window.
Judge: I have evidence from Photo 2. Mr Forster, what do the girls say about
what they saw?
We hope by now that you are incredulous in your reaction to this
dialogue. This scene is costing the public revenue a considerable sum of money.
A Crown Court trial in 2008 was adjudged to cost the public purse at least
£20,000 per day. This present debate – if it should ever have occurred – ought
to have been had before the trial commenced, not at this stage.
Forster: Natalie Ryan says she saw a naked man. From the thighs up and that she could see his genital area.
The CPS would say that
he uncovered himself and took his penis out of his trousers.
The emphasis is ours: Natalie Ryan said that she never saw Brian’s penis. Forster is misrepresenting what was said in Court.
Furthermore, Forster claims here that Brian took his penis out of
his trousers yet the three witnesses claimed that he was naked. Confusion
reigned supreme. Or rather, disinformation.
Bell: Elizabeth McIntyre said, ‘I couldn’t see much of his body. I
could see his arm.’ Katie Prouse said she only saw for 2 or 3 seconds. There is
no proper charge of Outraging Public Decency. There is clearly not enough
evidence.
Judge: I’m
against you. I will tell you why on Monday morning.
At this point, Loraine-Smith left the Court at 12.40pm, saying he would
return at 2.15pm.
With Bell continuing to engage in his pointless legal
debate with the prosecution, Brian left the courtroom at 12:45 and went to the
canteen on the first floor to make more notes.
“…Facts against girls’ evidence (given to Bell at 2pm)
1.
I never have masturbated at my window.
2.
The police dropped that allegation on 20 May
2008.
3.
Motivation – “exposure with intent to upset the onlooker” – why would
I want to upset them?
4.
All 3 witnesses failed to attend court in
February 2009, despite CPS assuring Judge that they would attend
5.
All 3 girls stated that I’m right hand – I’m
left-handed
6.
One girl (Natalie Ryan) said my room was “dark and shadowy” while Elizabeth
McIntyre said “lots of light”
7.
Location of house
(i)
Opposite a church and church hall which is often
used by the community up to
midnight
(ii)
On bus route B13 – buses stop outside my house
every 15-20 minutes. Up to
past midnight. They stop outside
my house in both directions (because of the church)
(iii)
People often stand and wait for the bus directly
outside or
directly opposite my house
8.
If I had done this, why would I tell Maya Walker about
McIntyre’s displays?
9.
McIntyre agreed she had been at her
open-curtained window
late at night with the light on, SEVERAL DAYS
AFTER SHE HAD CALLED THE POLICE.
10.
Maya Walker corroborates this in her evidence – why did you not call her as a
character witness?
11.
The girls’ statements were orchestrated by the
police because of the
language contained in them
12.
Natalie Ryan – “light source not clear enough to see his penis” so how did she see
masturbation? NR lied “she
used to shut both curtains when she was in there”
(i)
See Ellen Stanley’s statement
(ii)
Compare with McIntyre’s own admission that her curtains were open
13.
When is Christine Holloway going to be brought
into court? She was the
4th girl in the house
14.
McIntyre said, “I saw him masturbate for a
second or two.” Not long
enough to tell. “I kept my curtains closed the whole time.” No
she didn’t – see Maya Walker’s statement. Also NR’s
statement. She never mentioned
masturbation when she called the police. She
actually said “I’d forgotten to shut my curtains on 5 May and 17 May 2008.
15.
Katie Prouse – stated she had only seen for 2-3 seconds. “The light
was good”. NR said light was “bad.”
NR said McIntyre was in habit of leaving her curtains open.
16.
Maya Walker saw a show on 18 May 2008, 10 days after McIntyre called the police.
I was seeing MW and
had no need to masturbate over other people.
17.
GOUT – my doctor’s records show that I had gout on 7
May 2008 and it’s painful. Who would
even want to masturbate
when in such pain?
18.
POLICE ACTIVITY – the girls made a complaint 8 May 2008, yet didn’t give
statements until 19/20 May 2008
19.
PHOTOS – the jury has never seen photos at
night. The CPS has outsmarted you by keep showing pictures during the
day. We urgently need to introduce the photos at
night, particularly the one of Callow
standing at my window but it looks like me…”
We believe that this list alone is indicative of a trial that had only
one outcome. Brian is not a lawyer, but neither is he stupid. He knew that all
of these questions ought to have been asked in open court when the females were
on the stand. That they are being asked at this stage is an appalling
indictment of British justice.
At 2pm, Brian handed the above list to his previously dismissed
barrister who was still working on the assumption that he was working for
Brian. They spent time discussing the phrase ‘alarm or distress’, but it was
another pointless debate because Brian had never had any intention of causing
anyone alarm or distress.
At 2.40pm, the CPS attempted to have the reporting restrictions
removed. The judge agreed that they could be lifted. This was yet another
calculated move by the police – they were preparing to further defame an
innocent man.
The jury came in at 2.42pm, with DC Robbie on the stand.
Robbie: I received no further Faceparty chats and no MSN messages on 15 May 2008.
This was clearly perjury. Evidence we have gathered under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 clearly shows that Brian engaged in a
‘conversation’ with the person claiming to be a ‘girl’ on 15 May 2013 – this
has also been corroborated by Geoffrey and Roy Bacon, and even by DC Julia Godfrey
when she interviewed Brian on 4 June 2008 at Charing Cross police station with
DS Tunn and legal representative Marcia Weise present.
A short recess. Bell tells Brian that he would be needed to take
the stand around 4.20pm. John Callow arrived but didn’t get on the stand and so sat
in the public gallery observing the farce.
As the court day drew to a close, Brian was called to the stand by
Dominic Bell. There were a few background
questions which Brian answered honestly and truthfully.
He travelled back to New Eltham with John Callow. Both men went their separate
ways, Callow going home and Brian going to Geoff Bacon’s house to type out some
notes for Angela Shaw, his solicitor.
On the Saturday (19 December) and the Sunday (20 December), Brian
worked with Geoffrey Bacon at the latter’s house in Chislehurst.
December 20, 2009 was his daughter’s 35th birthday and he
did not hear from her. This caused him tremendous emotional pain and this
played into the hands of the police, too. They were out to destroy him, and when
the police undertake a fixated threat on a ‘target’, they will initiate what
amounts to a military operation and disrupt a target’s life as much as
possible. One of the first things they do is try to separate a target from his
family.
On Sunday, December 20, 2009 at 2:42pm, Brian sent the following email
to Angela Shaw, his solicitor from AA
Mirsons. It is reproduced in full
below. But before you read it, consider the stage of the trial. Brian is on the
stand. The trial is drawing to an end. Much of what Brian is asking for below
ought to have occurred months before
this date. Consider when you read the email whether you think Brian was being
set up or not, and whether you believe that Brian received justice:
“…Dear Angela,
I wish to inform
you that I am not happy with the way the trial is going, principally because I
have heard four days of the jury being given misinformation by the police and
the CPS.
Alias of alleged girl:
I believe we have
been hoodwinked by DC Robbie. He has told the jury about ShellyK14 whereas
in fact my communication was with Shelly14. This is an important distinction
but one which I feel the jury, given so much information to process, are
missing. Therefore I believe we need
URGENTLY to be given disclosure around Shelly14 DVDs as well as ShellyK14 DVDs.
It is my belief the jury and the judge are being misled.
Trial at Woolwich:
I have information
that one of the three young women did actually attend the area on the day of
the trial, and therefore the trial should have gone ahead. Tim Forster told the judge on Friday 30th January that all
his witnesses were ready and gave assurances to Judge Charles Byers that they would be present on Monday 2nd February
2009. I believe we need to get the records of Katie Prouse’s expenses from Plymouth to
London (hotel and travel expenses) because DC Saib told Tim
Forster on 2nd February that “the girl is in a hotel
nearby”. Therefore, I believe that the CPS are guilty of manipulating the court process.
Photographs:
I believe we need
to call the police photographer, Peter Thompson of Bexleyheath Police Station,
to tell the jury why he took photographs during the day when all the alleged
actions took place at night in the dark. We need to ask whether he cropped the
photos, and whether he used a zoom lens.
The only light in the room was hanging
towards the back of the room, and therefore anybody standing at the window
would have been in silhouette.
MSN Server Logs:
It could be that
MSN server logs could provide us with important
information to substantiate my claim that there was a fourth conversation which
the police have failed to produce to the jury. I believe we should try to get
the trial stopped until we get this information.
DVDs:
Although the girl’s
online sessions are allegedly being videoed, does the screen show the date and
time?
My own abuse:
I was incensed on
Friday when the judge alluded to the fact that just because I had only been a
paid counsellor for six months I did not have sufficient objectivity around the
way in which Off Centre were dealing with the issue of Child Sexual Abuse. I believe, therefore, that
it is imperative that my own CSA is mentioned in court in order to give the
jury an understanding that I have lived with this for fifty years and done an
incredible amount of research on CSA in that time and therefore suggesting I
only have six months’ experience is folly when in reality I have 50 years’
experience.
Slowing the trial down:
I firmly believe
that we should slow the trial down; I have as I said had a breakdown and am on
two different types of medication for that. I feel this case could be lost
simply due to the fact of the haste in which the judge is rushing this case
through before Christmas, and I do not wish to be found guilty simply because
there was not enough time to examine all of the facts.
Susie Orbach article:
I believe that I
should read out this article in full because it will give the jury a greater
understanding of the role of a counsellor when dealing with clients who present
with sexual issues.
Christiane Sanderson:
She is a leading
light and expert witness on CSA, and for this reason I believe we should read
out the DSM-IV criteria with aetiology on histrionic personality disorder
written by her.
Internet Reporting:
Whilst this trial
is ongoing there is still a report on the internet about it and I feel that
this will still prejudice the jury because any of them can go home and type in
my name into Google and they will find the story.
I believe,
therefore, that the trial should not be going ahead all the time that story
remains on line. Furthermore in this article which appears to have come from Scotland
Yard, it says quite categorically
that I was engaging in an internet chat room before moving to MSN. Detective Robbie claims there was no such conversation in an
internet chat room.
Kind regards…”
The barristers and solicitors amongst our readers will examine this
email and probably recoil in horror at the things that Brian was asking his
solicitor for and the incredibly large number of abuses of process that
occurred during this trial. As for our lay readers, we still believe that you
will be asking yourself how on earth a trial in a Crown Court could possibly be
so badly organised and how witnesses were not called or evidence adduced in
Court.
Roy Bacon cooked the three men a wonderful roast dinner
with lashings of beef gravy and perfectly-risen Yorkshire puddings. For
dessert, there was warm apple pie and ice cream, Brian’s favourite.
Over the evening meal the three men discussed the case and it occurred
to Brian that he needed to email Angela Shaw again and therefore, after the filling meal,
Brian and Geoffrey went to the latter’s bedroom and Brian typed out the email
below.
“…Dear Angela
A friend of mine
(who is still a member on Faceparty.com) has just performed a
test for me which shows that it is possible to log in to the same account at
least twice on the same computer. This
means - I would suggest - that the police can log in as Shelly14 and be “good”
and also log into Shelley14 and “be naughty” - all on the same computer (or
even two different computers).
I still believe
that the CPS should
have disclosed to us ALL the disks for “Shelly14” and “Shelly-k14” for the
period December 2007 - May 2008. THIS
HAS NOT BEEN DONE, and I believe that it’s worth Dominic asking the judge to
stop the case because of this lack of disclosure WHICH IS CRUCIAL TO MY CASE.
My friend Peter has
also sent me a text message (which I’ve kept on my phone to show proof to
Dominic) that there are at least 50 chatrooms on Faceparty at any one time, and NOT the “only 10” that DC
Robbie claimed - thus he directly lied to the judge,
because it was the judge who asked the question about how many chatrooms there
were on Faceparty. FOR THIS REASON, I BELIEVE
THAT WE NEED TO STOP THE TRIAL NOW AND PROVE TO THE JUDGE THAT DC ROBBIE LIED
TO HIM IN THE COURSE OF HIS EVIDENCE.
Additional Information you need to know
1) Last Friday at
10.22pm, I received a text from an unknown number saying that they had added me
to Hotmail and that they would ‘go on webcam if you do’.
The general
consensus amongst my friends is that this is a police attempt to entrap me, but
we cannot prove this because we do not know who the number belongs to. Whoever
it is, they could not get my mobile number because only a few trusted people
have that number, so it must be the police who are monitoring me.
2) Within the past
month, I contacted my local police and told them I had been the victim of
police corruption. They are legally
bound to contact me within 3 days, but they did not contact me until I went
into Sidcup police station again the following week. They have still done
nothing.
3) We need to
obtain the MSN server logs from MSN - these should have a
record of the conversation that I know took place (and Mr Geoff Bacon confirmed
in his statement), but the police said this never took place. Surely we need to halt the trial on this lack
of disclosure too?
Kind regards…”
We believe that these two emails show not only an abuse of process and
evidence of a miscarriage of justice, but also a trial the outcome of which had already been planned. All of the evidence
that has been made available to us supports this statement.
The parallels with Brian’s treatment and unlawful dismissal by Lambeth
Council are evident.
No comments:
Post a Comment