FRAMED! - part 28

46

Monday 21 December 2009

Once Brian arrived at court, he sought out Dominic Bell to discuss the emails he had sent to Angela Shaw which he had copied the barrister in to. But the barrister was nowhere to be seen. Bell ought to have sought the evidence Brian was asking for months before the trial.

We believe that this is an appalling case to write about. Not only has the trial been stage-managed from the start, but a man’s life and reputation has been destroyed in the name of protecting the real culprits. Remember the words of Marcia Weise – “You have out-stung an illegal sting operation and they will be out to get you!”

It is clear from Brian’s emails that both Angela Shaw and Dominic Bell failed to report crimes. They had a duty to report the crimes that Brian outlined in these emails – including perjury and perverting the course of justice.

To Bell, Brian mentioned two further points that he had not sent to Angela Shaw:

(i)    Certificate for working with Survivors of Abuse 2-3 February 2008 – the jury needs to see this

(ii)  page from Maya Walker’s work diary showing I took training (not just disseminated information re training) on Child Sexual Abuse on 28 March 2008

Forster arrived outside Court 4 at 11:05 and DC Julia Godfrey arrived at 11:15. Brian sat outside court all alone. He messaged a few friends and supporters. There was still no sign of Bell.

Forster did not look very happy. Some of his bounce had gone. He was speaking to Godfrey with the intention of cross-examining Brian.

At 11:20, Bell arrived. Brian asked to speak with him but he said that it was not possible, but that he would raise the issues of Brian’s emails with the judge. If this is true, then the fact the judge did not act upon the claims of perjury, perverting the course of justice and demonstrable police corruption means that he is culpable.

At 11:30, Nicholas Loraine-Smith entered the Court and delivered his comments about why he had decided that the trial should continue, even though the females all stated that they had never seen Brian’s genitals (and thus exposure could not have taken place.) Read carefully how Loraine-Smith tries to justify continuing with a trial whose outcome had already been decided: “…I said on Friday that I would give my reasons why the trial will continue. In the case of exposure, Elizabeth McIntyre said she saw a naked man masturbating and therefore the charge remains. The jury is one short, so we will wait until the juror arrives before continuing further…”

Bell: We’ve put Mr Pead’s original Personal Learning Journal into the Court file. I am going to give it to the jury and let them read it.

Forster: I agree that the jury can have it.

We hope that you will have seen that Brian was dealt an unlawful and fatal blow. Loraine-Smith had no legal reason to continue with the trial. The law could not be clearer. The Indictment read that Brian had exposed himself to three females. The three females all stated that they had not, after all, seen his genitals. Whether he was or was not masturbating (and he wasn’t) does not enter into the legal argument. The trial should have ceased at this point and the jury dismissed. It was then left to the CPS to decide whether they would initiate a new trial in the new year without the Joined exposure case which, as we have shown, had been Joined merely to prejudice Brian (as Judge Charles Byers had stated in February 2009). 

Brian was on the stand throughout this day of the trial. He knew that something was wrong when Bell failed to draw the jury’s attention to the police perjury that had been brought to his attention. Bell also rushed through his examination of Brian’s version of events.

When Forster began his cross-examination, Brian knew within minutes that the purpose of his being on the stand was simply to provide as much information to the prosecution as they could manage to squeeze from him.

It was evident that Forster was trawling for information about the Faceparty website and exactly what Brian knew about the liquidation. Had the trial been genuine, it would have emerged that DC Godfrey had committed perjury – just as Forster had misled the court – by claiming that the website was no longer functional: as we have seen, the Faceparty website had continued to trade even after the company behind the website had liquidated. It is still trading at the time of publication.

But Brian’s time on the stand was not over. He would be there again the next morning.

47

Tuesday 22 December 2009

At 9:20am, Brian went to the General Office to photocopy proof that he had encountered the ‘girl’ on Faceparty before they chatted on MSN – this was something that DC Robbie had lied about on oath.  Brian offered to pay for the photocopies, but an extremely kind man refused to take Brian’s money.

He arrived outside Court 4 at 9.30am. He went to see Jacqui the Court usher to ask about the protocol needed for him to give the Judge the photocopied sheets.

At 9:45 Brian finally made contact with Jacqui and handed her the vital photocopied evidence. She said to him that the judge might reject it, but he was pleased that he had handed it in according to the proper protocol.

At 9.50, Loraine-Smith discussed Brian’s paperwork with Bell.

At 10.00, Forster continued to cross-examine Brian. It became both farcical and unnecessary when Forster asked Brian the size of his penis! Brian, of course, refused to answer, turned to Loraine-Smith and asked, “Are you going to allow that comment in your Court?” and the Judge mildly rebuked Forster in a pretence that the trial was genuine.

Before he left the witness stand, Brian sought permission from the judge to show the jury the newspaper report from the Bexley Times dated 7 May 2009 which showed that there had been a two-stage step in the communications between Brian and the ‘girl’. DC Robbie denied this. We say that he perjured himself.

Brian had photocopied enough sheets for each jury member, the prosecutor, Bell and the judge. “I want to show the jury this document because it is incontrovertible evidence that DC Robbie committed perjury in this court.”

“I’m not allowing it.”

“Why?”

“It’s my Court and I’m not allowing it because it’s late evidence. Carry on Mr Forster.”

And in that moment, Brian knew that something was dreadfully wrong with this masquerade of a trial. He knew enough about the law to know that the judge ought to have ensured that Brian’s allegations of perjury and police corruption were reported to Scotland Yard’s professional standards department.

At 10:50 Kirsty McIntyre was called as a character witness. She was 30 years of age and had first met Brian at the age of 13 when she was in his English class. They had gotten along well.

When Brian organised an adventure holiday to an outdoor pursuit centre in Wales, Kirsty elected to go.

After she left school at 16, she worked in London and eventually found herself working as a para-legal at British American Tobacco. Her main work was in intellectual property. One evening, they met on a train from London to New Eltham, where Kirsty was visiting her parents. They swapped mobile phone numbers and met for a drink and a catch-up with other former pupils. There was no hint of any romance or sexual liaison. Brian simply respected Kirsty as a genuinely nice person with mature views on the world. When Brian told her about the impending court cases, she could not believe the allegations and readily agreed to be a character witness.

Forster:      Did he ever tutor you at school?

McIntyre:   Yes.

Forster:      Did he ever tutor you at his house?

McIntyre:   No.

Forster:      How well do you know him?

McIntyre:   Pretty well, really. He was my English teacher for two years                    and I went on several school holidays which he also went on.

Forster:      Do you know what makes him tick sexually?

McIntyre:   Well, I know that I do not believe these allegations against                     him for one minute. He would have had many opportunities                       to commit such crimes if he was that way inclined, but there                         were never any such allegations against him throughout his                   career.

Forster:      Has he told you about the precise details of the cases?

McIntyre:   Yes, of course. Like I said, I do not believe he is guilty of                         them at all.

Bell went through the motions and nothing of great significance was contributed through his line of questioning.

Bell then called John Callow, a friend of Brian’s. They had met on a counselling course at the Sidcup Adult Education centre. They had been on holiday to Malta and also to the Forest of Dean. They were able to talk about most things on a mature emotional level.

At 11:00, Callow swore an oath.

Bell again went through the motions, with basic questions:   

Bell:            What is your occupation?

Callow:       I’m a mental health manager. I formerly worked at British                     Telecom and Cable and Wireless.

Bell:            How did you meet?

Callow:       We met on a training course for counsellors.

Bell:            How would you describe his character?

Callow:       Brian is very honest and has great integrity.

Bell then turned his examination to Exhibit 3, the 1:100 scale diagram that Callow had drawn. Callow explained the tools that he had used to take the measurements.

Bell’s examination had added little to the trial, other than to say that – in his opinion – Brian is a very honest man with great integrity. This description of Brian mirrors those of Graham Dean, David Cox and various neighbours and colleagues, all of whom had known Brian over many years (see below).

Forster then cross-examined the witness. The prosecutor adopted an arrogant approach to his questioning.

Forster:      I’m suggesting your measurements are wrong.

Callow:       Not at all. Let’s take the jury go to Mr Pead’s house and                          check the measurements.

Callow had brought his measuring wheel into the courtroom because he predicted that the prosecution would try to belittle him and his drawing abilities, but Callow more than held his own against the prosecutor before leaving the stand and moving to the public gallery. This was a critical move by Callow, for reasons we will discuss later.

There was a fifteen-minute break.

Upon resuming, Bell informed the prosecution that he would read out several other character references in favour of Brian, but Forster refused to allow these to be read out because they were unsigned. Yet he had based the entire case on unsigned statements from the police and prosecution witnesses.

One such statement was from Graham Dean, a teacher at the Priory School in Orpington, Kent:

“...My name is Graham Dean and I am 54 years of age and have been a teacher for the past 24 years and am currently Head of Year, a post held now for 7 years.

I have known Mr Brian Pead for approximately 26 years meeting at Avery Hill Teacher Training College. We were introduced by another student who shared the same Hall of Residence with Brian.

Brian was very helpful in my settling into the Halls of Residence.

After we had both left college I spent some time - at least nine months sharing a flat with him. During this period, Sorrell (sic), Brian's daughter, would often visit and he would help her with her homework.

On a number of occasions she would stay over and if I had been out for the evening would come home and find him sleeping on the lounge ‘put you up’ whilst she had his bedroom. Brian was a devoted father and very proud of her.

Once I eventually moved into my own home Brian gave up time to help with the construction of a garage and conservatory.

Brian also came on at least one of our school outdoor weekends away when students were introduced to climbing and caving. The school has its own outdoor centre and I had no hesitation in inviting Brian along.

Brian, myself and other colleagues from my school also enjoyed holidays in Spain and on the isle of Aran (sic). Brian was and still is a person who generally gets on well with whoever he meets. He is articulate and good company.

Throughout our friendship I have never had any concerns about him around young children or minors. Until recently I also got the impression he was a proud grandfather taking an active interest in his grandchildren’s development. That relationship was put under considerable strain by the allegations.

I have always found Brian to be philosophical about life and always looking for ways to improve his ‘lot’. Brian has always shown dedication to any project he has taken on - not always successfully - but always willing to learn from the experience. He will pick himself up and try something else. I have always admired his tenacity and zest for life.

As part of this he was also training to be a counsellor, a role I felt he would have had many attributes for.

Brian has always shown an interest in people and as far as I am concerned has always been very open about his own life with all its ups and downs.

I have had no hesitation in inviting him to social events where young people are to be present. In fact no such thoughts of child protection issues have passed through my mind. From what Brian has explained about the circumstances of the allegations the whole thing appears bizarre and ludicrous...”

Notice how Graham Dean, an extremely experienced teacher who had known Brian for a quarter of a century or more, had no hesitation in saying that, not only did he think Brian presented no child protection issues whatsoever, but also that the allegations against him were ‘bizarre and ludicrous’.

A Lee Green firefighter, David Cox, also wrote glowingly of his experience of Brian:

“...Name: Mr David Cox

Occupation: Firefighter

I first met Mr Pead through my father some 17 years ago. My father was looking for an English Tutor, and saw Mr Pead's advert My wife was thinking of writing a book, and my father put us on to Mr Pead to seek his advice.

I later joined a local darts team, of which both my father and Mr Pead were members. Mr Pead and I became friends during this time before the team disbanded, some 7 years later.

During the ’90s, I was offered an investment opportunity in a new company being set up by Mr Pead and his then partner, Ms Armin. I agreed and we worked together on this project for two years but, unfortunately, the company went into Liquidation. Since then, Mr Pead and I kept in touch, but had not met on a regular basis until last May, when I commenced work on a new-build in his vicinity, and offered him work at various stages of the project.

In all the time that I have known Mr Pead, both socially and professionally, he has always conducted himself with the utmost integrity. He has never been underhand in his dealings with either his colleagues or business associates, and at no time has anything in his speech, manner or action ever given me cause for concern with regard to either his trustworthiness or the direction of his moral compass.

Regarding the charges levelled against Mr Pead, I cannot give them credence, as I do not believe Mr Pead would ever knowingly consider such an act. He has always been a very sociable individual who has been a member of the local Round Table, and is now a qualified Councillor (sic). He has been a teacher for many years, and to the best of my knowledge has never had his conduct with any of his pupils, clients or members of the public bought into question.

This is obviously a very distressing time for Mr Pead. Since disclosing this situation to me, he has become much more reserved in my company, and it is obvious to me that this whole situation has taken its toll. I trust that this matter will soon be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Yours

David Cox...”

 These two men had a combined knowledge of more than 40 years of being around Brian. His neighbours had also been around him for many years. Not one single person had any doubts about his sexual proclivities. Neither Graham Dean nor David Cox was written to by either Angela Shaw or Dominic Bell. They were not called as witnesses. You might like to ask yourself why.

Loraine-Smith then provided a summary of the cases prior to the closing speeches. But notice how he strays from the legal definition of exposure and creates the appearance of a case. This trial should have ceased by now – notice how he tries to justify the corruption which is taking place in his court.

“...My job is to provide the jury with points of law. The Crown does not have to prove it.

Count 1.

Did the defendant intend others to see him masturbate?

Did he intend to cause alarm and distress?

Count 2.       

The Crown are calling this an attempt. You need to be sure he did more than just an attempt. The contact was sexual. She was under 16. The defendant claims his interests were more professional than sexual. This is not a personality contest. You don’t have to like him.

Analyse what the Crown has to prove. I’m hoping the closing speeches will be over by lunch...”

Did you notice the sleight of hand? In just a few words, Loraine-Smith has claimed that the CPS does not have to prove Brian’s guilt – in any court case, the onus is always on the Crown to prove guilt.

Did you notice how the judge makes a comment – “Did the defendant intend others to see him masturbate?” – as if the masturbation was a real event. In any event, the charge was for exposure, not for any other public order offence. Besides, how could the females be considered bona fide witnesses when their testimony in court did not match the unsigned statements they allegedly made to the police and for which the Computer-Aided Despatch (CAD) reports had never been produced?

And did you notice how Loraine-Smith refers to the ‘girl’ as if she were a real person? We have shown earlier that for Brian - or any other defendant to be guilty of this crime - then there has to be a real person.

Did you also notice how Loraine-Smith introduces some NLP – neuro-linguistic programming - by saying “This is not a personality contest. You don’t have to like him”?

The judge has sown a seed in the minds of the jurors. By now, one or two (or more) of the jurors who are highly susceptible to suggestion will now be thinking, “I don’t like the defendant.”

Notice, too, how the Judge is racing through the trial – “I’m hoping the closing speeches will be over by lunch.”

What possible credible reason can he have for hoping the closing speeches will be over by lunch? We refer you to the words of Marcia Weise on 4 June 2008 – “You have out-stung the police sting operation and they will be out to get you.”

The obsequious Timothy Forster stated that his closing speech would take twenty minutes. Bell offered no such assurance.

Defence counsel then called Michael Bird. Notice the strange order of events in this case.  

As Michael Bird took to the witness stand, John Callow entered the public gallery. This was a crucial move – the significance of which will be made known in a later chapter.

Bird:           I was Brian’s counselling supervisor at the Community Drug                  Service South London (CDSSL) in Wallington, Surrey.

                   I have been a counsellor for more than 10 years. I’ve known                   Brian for 3 years. I initially interviewed him for the role of                   volunteer counsellor at CDSSL.

                   He impressed me greatly at interview. His knowledge of                                     counselling and of people was impressive. His ability to get                 along with people was remarkable.

                   Our clients were problematic, highly complex and                                    challenging. I would say that around 70-75% have an                                    underlying cause of sexual issues.

Bell:            Do you have to confront the Child Sexual Abuse if clients                        tell you about it?

Bird:           Usually, yes.

And in less than five minutes, the examination of Michael Bird was complete. Prior to the examination in Court, Bell had discussed all of the likely questions he would ask.

The reality was that Bell kept his line of questioning to such a narrow range that a full picture of Brian and his qualities did not get spoken about in Court at all.

After the trial, Michael Bird complained about Bell and a miscarriage of justice to the Bar Standards Council and later to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Once the witness has been examined, it is left up to the ‘opposition’ as to whether they want to cross-examine the witness. Forster chose not to. He knew that Bird could only add to Brian’s credibility, not detract from it and so he refrained from any further cross-examination.

At this point, Bell was on his feet and said, “No indecent photos were found on his computers by the police after forensic examination.”

Loraine-Smith interjected with, “I want the closing speeches.”

Forster got to his feet and began his closing speech. We reproduce a précised version of the most salient points below with our emphasis added. We will discuss the emphases after the closing prosecution speech. When reading the speech, please remember that the jury has not been sworn in properly, rendering the trial a nullity.

“… There are two allegations. You may return different verdicts. The two allegations are different.

Count 1: Are they trustworthy girls?

Count 2:            The defendant said that the officers are lying.

The defendant claims he was not the watcher of the girls, but was being watched. Elizabeth McIntyre said she found the experience upsetting. The defendant said it was a sham and that she was ‘putting on shows’ for someone. Ms McIntyre says she received a creepy letter.

The defendant has an odd mind.

In his Personal Learning Journal, he spoke about ‘dark nights of the soul’.

The defendant is lonely and obsessed.

Did the girls call the police for no reason at all?

No matter what the measurements say, the girls say they saw him.

We now come to Count 2.

Nowhere in the 3 conversations is there any reference to any chatroom.

The defendant says he saw her in a chatroom on 28 January 2008. He cannot run away from the transcripts. He claims he is a respectable man. He claims he is not the man in his own private world. He claims he was researching into Child Sexual Abuse as a counsellor and he claims he was online doing research.

No-one forced him to go online.

No-one forced him to answer the girl’s initial contact.

No-one forced him to offer money for sex.

He called the number – no-one forced him to call it.

There is significant overlap in counts 1 and 2.

On May 7, the defendant would have you believe he was not masturbating.

On May 8, there was a flurry of messages on Faceparty and it is impossible to tell the difference between genuine contact and smoking out.

Notice how both offences are made remotely.

The defendant doesn’t actually meet up with the girl.

He says it is a blur in which he is the victim. He had crossed the line.

The defendant is guilty of both charges…”

That was, in essence, the closing speech by Forster. We will now analyse its content in the light of the facts we know and have researched and seen bona fide evidence for.