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.

FRAMED! - part 27

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 4^th 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 35^th 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.