At this point, Brian knew that the police had nothing against him. When a detective in an alleged investigation has to resort to such inane and immature questions, it is a reasonable assumption to make that the police are merely trawling for information or trying to catch a suspect out. What the police are not doing is investigating the alleged crime although they are giving the impression that they are. Brian already knew at this point that he had provided the police with sufficient information to prove his innocence, but they had ignored it and they were continuing to interview him under caution.
“Well obviously it’s not a theatre production we’re looking at ... when I say a show I’m talking...”
“I’ll just re-phrase it, Brian. Tell me exactly what she did when you saw her.”
Note here the police tactics. DC Saib’s use of the name ‘Brian’ is an attempt to make the suspect feel that they are ‘mates’ when nothing could be further from the truth. Secondly, Saib is trying to lead Brian down a particular path: “tell me exactly what she did when you saw her”. Brian had already explained all this to PC Sargeant.
“Well on several occasions she will kind of put the light on, get into the middle of the room, leave this curtain open and these curtains closed. This is a regular pattern and it would be like kind of dancing, kind of flicking her hair, it would be like putting her top on, taking her top off, putting another top on, another top off, it would be like kind of coming across to the window to see if anybody is looking, going back and doing a bit more and so on. This could be anything from a quarter of an hour to half an hour, or longer.”
For more than ten minutes, DC Saib tried to twist the reality round to show that Brian was a middle-aged man who had fixated on a 20-something year old and who believed that she was putting on these shows for him.
The reality was that she was putting on these shows for him, but not for the reasons Saib implied.
Brian Pead is not a stupid man. He knew that it was no coincidence that four females moved into the house across the road from him at the very same time that he was investigating Faceparty and what he had uncovered at Lambeth Council.
He knew that the shows were meant for him and he knew that she was trying to lead him into some form of illicit sexual act.
It was for this reason that he had put the note through the door, informing Elizabeth McIntyre (he did not, of course, know her name at that point) that she could be seen. He believed this to be some form of protection for him – there was a record that he had noticed what was going on. He also knew, in sending that note, that he would run the risk of corrupt police officers, barristers and judges using that note against him, but he took the risk in the belief that the note itself was some form of protection. A course of action was open to him in which he did nothing but merely observe McIntyre’s attempts to impersonate the Lorelei, a siren of the Rhine whose singing lures sailors to shipwreck. But doing nothing would prove worse, he felt, and thus he sent the note, informing his friend, John Callow, of his actions. In keeping the note, McIntyre had, in fact, played into Brian’s hands. Any normal, decent female who had been informed that she could be seen undressing at the window would have ensured that she stopped the shows and that she closed the curtains at both windows in her bedroom. But the note had the opposite effect on McIntyre – she increased the number of shows and she became more daring, despite claiming to the police that the note had “freaked me out”.
As the second interview drew to a close, Brian was asked if he had anything else to add. He paused to think before speaking and then said:
“I’m definitely not guilty of the allegations. I can see how an outside observer, like either of you, can look at that note there and put two and two together to make five when putting two and two together needn’t necessarily be. What is my concern is there’s some kind of dynamic here but I wouldn’t mind betting she’s been caught out putting on shows and has had to make a story for her friends. I’m not sure that that’s right and so on, but I definitely feel aggrieved here, I have to say that.”
“Okay, most people do when they’ve got allegations made against them, they’re not obviously happy about it.”
“I deny the allegations completely.”
“That will do then. Can I ask you just to sign what you’ve drawn there?
MR PEAD SIGNED AND DATED HIS DRAWING
We’ll conclude the interview at 11.15…”
It is obvious that Brian had given a good account of himself despite having no legal representation because he was then led away to the cells where he remained for another hour and a quarter. During this time, the two police officers would have been conferring with the Crown Prosecutors who would have been telling the police to “Ask him this…” and “Ask him about…” in order to try to lay charges. Had they had enough evidence, they would have laid charges immediately, but they didn’t and so Brian had to endure a third interview. It lasted, however, for just seven minutes. The transcript makes for interesting reading and is reproduced in part here. Note the sheer desperation in the questioning. It is clear to Brian at that time that his version of events had been completely discounted and that the police had no agenda other than to lay charges against him.
PC Sargeant explained why they were going to interview Brian again. “This is the third tape that we’ve had today. This is the second interview today. The last interview ended at 11.15 today and it is now 12.30. The reason why I’m interviewing you again, Brian, is we just want to clarify one point, and I’ll explain what that’s going to be. What I needed to clarify with you, Brian, is when we were talking earlier about the situation in the bedroom, where the girls said they saw you masturbating in the bedroom window on the 7th of May. We were concentrating on what we think is the bedroom window, where you’ve got the big bay windows, is that right?”
“Yes.”
“It’s now come to light that the window that you were seen to be masturbating in was actually the window on the left-hand side as you look at your house. Do you know which one I mean?”
“Yeah, that would be the landing window.”
“You’ve got three windows on the front of your house haven’t you? One on the left, the landing window and then you’ve got the big bay window. Is that correct?”
“Yes, it’s not a bay, but I know what you mean. It’s not a double bay it’s a single bay, hang on I’m getting confused. If you look at my house from the road my bedroom is over on the right, then there’s a middle window, then there’s a window to the left.”
“That’s correct yes, and that window at the moment has got clothes in it. Well, it’s that window that the two witnesses saw you stood at naked and masturbating on 7th May 2005, the window on the left hand side as you look at the house.”
“Okay.”
“When the girl with the blonde hair glanced up, she said she glanced only quickly, realised there was a light on, saw you standing naked and then looked away, but the two girls that actually were stood and saw said it was that left hand window.”
“Okay.”
“Were you stood in that window masturbating?”
“Never. Absolutely 100% never.”
“Were you stood in the landing window masturbating?”
“No.”
“Were you stood in any windows in your house masturbating that night?”
“No. I’ve been over this before.”
“Okay. Have you stood naked in your window masturbating at any point between now and October/September last year, masturbating in any of your windows?”
“No.”
“So you definitely weren’t stood masturbating in your window on the night that the girls have alleged?”
“Absolutely not.”
“Were you doing anything in that window?”
“Absolutely not.”
“Have you stood naked in that window or are you ever naked in that room?”
“That room is absolutely choc-a-bloc full of stuff. It wouldn’t be possible to stand in front of the window in that room at all.”
“What have you got in that room?”
“Tools, newspaper cuttings, football books, choc-a-bloc full of crap basically at the moment so it just simply would not be possible.”
“What have you got in front of that window at the moment?”
“Clothes.”
“How are they placed in front of the window?”
“There’s a curtain rail, they’re all on the curtain rail like a wardrobe.”
“Just an open curtain rail and they’re just hanging off it?”
“Yeah.”
“How near to the window is that?”
“Right in front of the window. You couldn’t see in.”
“Is it right up against the window?”
“Yeah. The curtain pole hangs three inches or four inches away from the wall. They’re on that pole, so in effect they’re curtains.”
“Is it fixed to the wall then, this curtain pole?”
“Yeah.”
“So it’s not on a free-standing thing, it’s fixed to the wall so they can’t be moved or anything, but the hangers that the clothes are on there, can they be moved from the curtain pole?”
“What the shirts and things on hangers that are now on the pole, could they be moved? Yeah, they can come on and off because in effect that’s my wardrobe at the minute while I do all the rooms up.”
“So you’re saying that you weren’t stood at that window on the left-hand side of your house as you look at it?”
“Most certainly.”
“And you’ve never been stood at that window naked?”
“Never.”
“Would you need to change in that room at all?”
“No, because you can’t get in there.”
“Do you not need to get to your clothes that are hanging up?”
“Yeah, but I mean you couldn’t physically stand in there changing really.”
“But if you can get to the window to get your clothes then you can stand there can’t you?”
“Just ... there’s boxes and tools and all that so I can reach over and get something yeah but that’s all.”
“So you have to reach to get your clothing do you?”
“Mm.”
“Okay, so you’re saying at no point have you stood in any of your windows in the house, whether they’re upstairs or downstairs.”
“Mm.”
“You have not stood there masturbating naked?”
“No.”
“And you’ve not been naked in that room where your clothes are?”
“Never.”
“Have you been naked in any of your other rooms, apart from your bedroom obviously?”
“No ... well, only in the bathroom obviously.”
“Where’s the bathroom?”
“At the back.”
And the British taxpayer is footing an enormous bill for such ‘investigation’ by the police. Two officers cost the taxpayer money. A Crown prosecutor and associated staff. Then the typist has to be paid. This futile and pointless exercise has cost the taxpayer a considerable sum of money. Readers should remember that any criminal prosecution has to be judged against the standard that it is in the public interest to prosecute. Brian Pead had already provided sufficient information to show that the allegations had been clearly fabricated, but the police had pursued him relentlessly, even in the face of such a credible account by Brian.
“Right, that’s it. Is there anything you’d like to add or say or ask?”
“Well, yeah, I would actually because this just confirms what I originally felt, that a lot of this is complete poppy-cock for want of a better word. That’s all I want to say.”
The interview concluded at 12:37. At this point, the tape recorder was turned off and PC Sargeant left the interview room, leaving just Brian and DC Saib.
The detective spoke first. “Hmm, it’s not looking good, Brian. Listen, mate, do yourself a favour. Accept a caution and I can make all this go away.”
Knowing full well what Saib was indicating, Brian nevertheless asked, “What do mean, exactly?”
“Well, we have three witnesses…”
“And what about the fourth female student? What has she had to say about this?”
“She hasn’t made a statement…”
“And why would that be?”
“She just hasn’t.”
“That’s not good enough.”
“Look, listen. If you accept a caution, you won’t have to go to Court. It won’t get in the paper and no-one need know. You can be out of the station in minutes.”
“I expect to be released now anyway. I have fully co-operated. The interviews are finished and I have the right to be released now.”
“But what about the caution? Will you accept a police caution?”
“Fuck off! I’m innocent. I can prove that in Court! I am not going to accept a caution when I’m innocent, just so you can improve your statistics.”
“But a caution won’t show up on your police record.”
Brian knew this to be a lie. Throughout his teaching career and his training as a counsellor, Brian had been subjected to Enhanced Disclosures by the Criminal Records Bureau. Saib had lied.
“I’m not interested.”
Unwilling to play ball, Brian was led back to a cell to await his fate.
PC Sargeant collected him from the cells an hour or so later and charged him with exposure. “Get yourself a solicitor,” she said as he left the station.
It later transpired that between Brian’s second and third interviews, Elizabeth McIntyre had visited the police station and changed her original statement. She had initially claimed that she had seen Brian masturbating in his bedroom window with the light off, then she provided a statement to say that he had been in the bedroom to the far left (as seen from the street) with the light on.
Even the police themselves had conceded that that bedroom window was covered with Brian’s clothes.
At no point had the police sent a forensics team round to Brian’s house to measure the height of the windowsills or the ceilings. They did not take a measurement of his height. They had not objectively taken evidence from both parties – they had merely believed the statements of three out of four students.
The police and Crown Prosecution Service use several lawbooks to refer to when charging people with alleged offences. Archbold is one of the more famous of such books. This is what Archbold says about Exposure:
“…(1) Exposure
(a) Statute
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.
(b) Indictment
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Exposure, contrary to section 66(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Particulars of Offence
AB, on the ____ day of ____, 20__ intentionally exposed his genitals, intending that someone would see them and be caused alarm or distress…”
Archbold is clear on the two important steps here: firstly, the act itself (in legal terms the actus reus). A person must perform the act of exposing his genitals. Secondly he must have the intent (in legal terms, the mens rea) to intentionally cause the onlooker alarm or distress.
It is difficult to conceive that the Crown truly believed that Brian Pead, even if he had been masturbating at his bedroom window, was doing so with malicious intent.
The concurrence principle is also relevant here: this means that the actus reus and the mens rea must coincide in time. According to Simester, Spencer, Sullivan and Virgo in Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, Hart Publishing, 2010, this principle has an ancient pedigree. As long ago as 1798, Lord Kenyon described it as:
“…a principle of natural justice, and of our law, that actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty). The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime…”
Since criminal prosecutions are subject to certain tests before they are brought, it is difficult to imagine why this case ever came to court on its merits alone. The Crown Prosecution’s own website provides the following information about how decisions are made in respect of which cases to prosecute. We reproduce the text below:
“…The principles we follow:
The Code for Crown Prosecutors sets out the basic principles to be followed by Crown Prosecutors when they make case decisions. The decision on whether or not to charge a case against a suspect is based on two tests outlined in the Code.
The evidential test
This is the first stage in the decision to prosecute. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a ‘realistic prospect of conviction’ against each defendant on each charge. They must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. They must also consider what the defence case may be and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case. A ‘realistic prospect of conviction’ is an objective test. It means that a jury or a bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. (This is a separate test from the one that criminal courts themselves must apply. A jury or magistrates’ court should only convict if it is sure of a defendant’s guilt.) If the case does not pass the evidential test, it must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be.
The public interest test
If the case does pass the evidential test, Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest. They must balance factors for and against prosecution carefully and fairly. Some factors may increase the need to prosecute but others may suggest that another course of action would be better. A prosecution will usually take place however, unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. The CPS will only start or continue a prosecution if a case has passed both tests.
The emphases are ours. Based on these supposedly objective tests, there was no case. The three female ‘victims’ had all made statements which differed from each other significantly. The police – on their own later admission – had not investigated the case. No-one would have thought that Brian deliberately intended to cause the females alarm or distress. And the act itself was not possible because in the window in question, the windowsills were above Brian’s groin area and the ceiling was too low for him to stand on a chair or anything. Brian is around 6ft 1in tall and the ceiling height was measured by John Callow (a former surveyor for British Telecom) to be 6ft 7in, giving a clearance of only 6 inches. It would have been physically impossible for Brian to have stood on a chair or anything else had he wished to display his genitals because there was insufficient headroom. Furthermore, between the bottom of the visible glass area of the window and the windowsill was a further gap of 7 inches, which meant that only a person of approximately 5ft tall could have displayed his genitals in that window.
But perhaps the most significant point was that Brian had two witnesses of his own – John Callow, a counselling friend, and Maya Walker, his colleague and lover. He had not mentioned this to the police because (a) they had never asked whether he had any witnesses (a serious error in their ‘investigation’) and (b) he gave the police enough rope to hang themselves, as his father had taught him years before.
When he put the note through the front door of 62 Days Lane, he had told his friend, John Callow, about it, about the strange pattern with the curtains and what he had seen.
But Sunday 18 May 2008 was to prove a pivotal point in this scenario.
The police had claimed that Brian had been masturbating at his bedroom window from October through to 18 May 2008.
Before discussing that significant Sunday, let us return to the chronology of Brian’s life in this month.
7 May 2008 – McIntyre claims Brian had been masturbating at a bedroom window.
7 May 2008 – Brian is in agony from gout and goes to bed early to take the weight off his feet.
8 May 2008 – Brian struggles in to work at Off Centre and during his lunch hour he types out a letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
8 May 2008 – On his way home from work, Brian attends Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup and is diagnosed with gout for the first time in his life (this hospital visit is, of course, on his medical records).
8 May 2008 – On his way home from the hospital, Brian calls in at Geoffrey Bacon’s house in Chislehurst, uses the internet and is messaged by the ‘girl’ on Faceparty. He tells ‘her’ “You are a fake!”
13 May 2008 – Brian takes the letter to the EAT.
18 May 2008 – Maya Walker visits Brian in Sidcup. Walker is a witness to Elizabeth McIntyre’s ‘shows’.
20 May 2008 – Brian arrested.
Why had the police taken a full two weeks from 7 May until 20 May to arrest Brian for alleged indecent exposure? Would he have even been arrested at all had he not taken the letter to the EAT? Why did the fourth female student in the house at 62 Days Lane not make a statement? Why did the police not measure Brian’s house? Why did they not seek his permission to obtain his medical records? Why did the police not interview Maya Walker, his known lover? Why did the police not interview John Callow? Why did the police not interview Brian’s neighbours, particularly Glen Meeking and Ellen Stanley?
The authors believe that the police failed to conduct a proper investigation because had they done so, they could not possibly have brought any charges against Brian. What ‘evidence’ they did have was the witness statements of three females in their early-20s, and evidence exists which shows that they may have been operating a brothel (as Glen Meeking suggested in his witness statement) or even cultivating drugs (as Ellen Stanley suggested in her statement.) Ellen Stanley – the Miss Marple of that area of Days Lane - had also noticed the odd pattern with the curtains at number 62.
Clearly the police had not conducted a thorough investigation. This was an exact mirror of Brian’s unlawful dismissal from Lambeth Council.
Let us now examine the statement made by Maya Walker about Sunday 18 May 2008. This is of great significance. For this reason, it is reproduced in its entirety:
“…Statement
Written on: 10.06.2008 by: Maya Walker
07.05.2008
I remember this day especially, as we had a ‘Dirty Hands day’ at work. This meant that we closed our counselling centre to clients on that day, so we could spend the day clearing the clutter that we gathered over the years. I remember Brian limping on that day. When I asked him what had happened he told me that he was not sure, but that he probably had broken his toe. He said that he could not remember when he would have done it, but that was the only way he was able to make sense of his pain. I could see that he was in great pain when he left work that day and that he was not able to stand for long.
When he came to work the next day, he appeared in even greater agony. It did not surprise me that he came to work regardless of his pain, as I was aware that commitment to work and his clients is one of his qualities. He said that he was going to the hospital to be checked in the evening after work. It later transpired that he was told that he had gout.
18.05.2008
In the evening Brian and I were lying on the bed watching TV. Our back and heads were leaning on the headboard opposite the door. When sitting in the middle of the bed, leaning on the headboard, without any effort as you turn your head slightly to the left, you can see through the window of the house further down the road on the opposite side. I would usually be either in the middle or on the left side of the bed and could not be seen by others because of the blue scaffolder’s sign. When sitting on the left hand side of the bed, you are unable to see the windows well from that angle, as the scaffolding is in the way. When we were in half-sitting position Brian asked me what I think about what I can see through the window of that house. I moved slightly towards the middle of the bed and turned my head slightly to the left and looked through the window. I saw a woman wearing a very revealing vest, walking through the room. I could clearly observe that the top she was wearing was very revealing and exposing to some extent her bigger breasts. I was only able to see her some of the time when she is in a particular part of the room, as you see through the window at an angle. I saw her stop in that particular part of the room, where she could be clearly seen. She turned away from the window for a number of seconds, maybe 10 or 20. She then turned around and started walking to another part of the room. I saw her glance towards Brian's house and saw her lock her look. I said to Brian that I feel that she is aware of being able to be seen. I saw the same happen on a few occasions, as she walked to the part of the room where she was able to be seen (not a large area, as the houses are not standing exactly opposite from each other), stood there for a while and as she would turn to walk to another part of the room. She would always look in to our direction. The impression I was left with, was that she was deliberately wanting to show herself, which is what I said to Brian. Brian’s response was something like: “That’s what I thought. It’s helpful for me to hear this from you. It’s not something I have imagined then?” He then told me that he has been seeing her doing this for months and that his impression is also that she seems to want to be observed, as she would have at least one of her curtains always open in the evenings and he would be able to see her getting undressed. We both talked about the possibility that she might the kind of person that we would call an ‘exhibitionist’. A person that likes to display herself. This comment or observation was not unusual for us, as we often make observations about people, checking out our instincts or views about them with the hope of broadening our understanding of human nature. We both find this way of interacting helpful for our development as counsellors and our self-development as human beings.
Being under no illusion that some men would find this kind of display fascinating, a turn on and perhaps even inviting, I asked Brian how he’s finding it and whether he would want to get involved with her in some way, if she was up for it? Brian said that months ago, he did give her a note inviting her to contact him, or actually stop the shows by bringing it to her attention in a humorous way. (I don’t remember exact contents of the note.) She never contacted him. He also said that he still notices her displays as they are almost in his face (meaning that he does not need to make much effort to notice) and though he is interested in what they represent to her, he now feels impartial about them.
24.05.2008
I came to see Brian in the late afternoon with intention to go to the cinema. Brian told me that he now felt very apprehensive leaving the house in case she may think that he is there because of her. He told me that earlier that day, he stepped out of the house and observed that the woman came out of the house. Even though she came out just after he stepped out, he immediately got worried that she may think that he came out, because she was there. He told me that he observed that she was wearing very high cut hot pants and a tight fitting top. (I have since seen her myself on a cloudy and rainy day wearing hot pants). He asked what I as a woman thought about this. I knew that Brian was arrested and why and the impression I got was that the woman claimed to be distressed by Brian’s alleged masturbating at the window and his so-called voyeurism. Having worked with a number of women who were in one way or another left distressed because of different kind of encounters with men I could not make sense of this. The women I have in mind are the ones that had a particular experience with a man, whereby they were subjected to something they did not want to happen to them. Anything from a man openly ‘hitting on them’ or to a greater extreme where they may have been indecently assaulted or even raped. Those women’s reaction to the distress they would be left with, would be to never want to face a man again or if that choice was not there, they would often change the way they would dress, so not to appear in any way provocative. They would lose the freedom to dress anyway they felt comfortable with before the incident. Knowing this, I was surprised to hear that the woman would come out in hot pants, knowing that she would be potentially seen by a man who allegedly made her feel distressed by allegedly masturbating in his own house. I was also thinking about her displays in the window after the alleged masturbation happened. Again this behaviour would not marry up my understanding of the behaviour of a woman in distress.
Brian and I have been very honest with each other from the onset even with telling each other the things that would be a challenge to share with someone else. From how I got to know Brian sexually, I feel that displaying himself while masturbating in his neighbourhood would not be a turn on for him. The way he is perceived matters to him greatly and being seen as a potential ‘pervert’ by masturbating by the window would potentially tarnish his reputation of nearly 20 years living in that house, as he could be seen by other people, e.g. vicar across the road, or even by people leaving the church hall at night. The church hall opposite Brian’s house is used for social functions on a regular bases (sic) and people leave it up to midnight on occasions.
Even more importantly, I don’t have any doubts that Brian would not cause any intentional distress to anyone, as he is particularly sensitive to people and shows a lot of care and consideration to people around him and it is of great importance to him how people view him…”
This statement from Maya Walker shows Brian’s honesty and transparency about his intentions and motives and his behaviour. He always tries to ensure that at least one other person is aware of whatever he does, so that he always has someone to rely on and ‘watch his back’.
Maya Walker clearly shows that Elizabeth McIntyre was putting on shows exactly as Brian had told the police during his lengthy interviews.
Ms Walker also confirmed that Brian was in great pain on the 7 and 8 May, and that he had visited the hospital.
Ms Walker also confirmed that – in her opinion as his lover – Brian would never want to cause distress to anyone. He is a very spiritual human being and is “…particularly sensitive to people and shows a lot of care and consideration to people around him…” Causing distress to female students (or others) is not in his psychological or emotional make-up.
If Brian had been masturbating at his bedroom window between October 2007 and May 2008, why had it taken McIntyre eight months to report such behaviour, particularly if it caused her such trauma?
The authors put forward the view that, because of his discoveries of child abuse, racism and bullying within Lambeth Council, together with his investigations into Faceparty, Brian was under police observation. The authors also believe that his house was bugged, and that the police then became aware of the conversation between Brian and Maya Walker of 18 May 2008. The police were then forced to move fast and arrest Brian on obvious trumped-up charges. They needed him ‘in the system’ to enable them to monitor him even more closely and to disrupt his research and investigations.
The authors also believe that by visiting the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Brian had to be silenced, his attention turned away from an Appeal and his energies focused on fighting spurious criminal allegations. This pattern of behaviour by the police has been noticed by the authors of this book over some six years. Each time Brian attempts to bring his findings to the attention of the authorities, the very same authorities – which are there to protect his rights – actually abuse their powers, abuse Brian’s human rights and try to discredit him in the eyes of others.
Elizabeth McIntyre, Natalie Ryan and Katie Prouse had made spurious allegations against Brian Pead – Christine Holloway, the fourth tenant at 62 Days Lane, Sidcup had not.
But if Brian thought that his problems couldn’t get any worse, he was wrong – terribly wrong.
Within the space of less than two weeks, they were to suddenly multiply dramatically. His problems multiplied in direct correlation with his exposure of police corruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment