Police, false accusers and media

The story in the media about a 14 year old Claridges waiter - we proved he was over 16 and Claridges swore they would never have employed a 14 year old in that job. In court he boasted that he “made £500 a week at Claridges” - unusual for a junior waiter - £500 then is worth about £2000 today. £100,000 a year seems an awfully large amount for just waiting. As I say in GUILTY, perhaps he was also working Room Service.

We discovered a lot about this man (now in his 60s) from neighbours, relations and others; which would have been presented to the jury had the trial proceeded. He was banned from holding a Directorship for 6 years, following some very suspect dealings with a company that went bust, owing huge amounts. His father had been about to be tried for raping his sisters, but had died from cancer before the court case could be brought, and had always said, if he went down he would be taking his son with him, as the “Claridges waiter” had raped his own sister numerous times when she was ten and he was twenty.

But what astonished me was discovering that both Surrey Police and the CPS had colluded in covering this up, as it would have damaged their case against me. The sister had been due to give evidence (if you could call it that) against me but they decided to assure her they had decided not to call her as a witness. So a child rapist walks free to rape again because they needed him to try to jail me, an innocent man. 

The story about the man (in 1970) on whom I stuck a badge, praising him for his bravery in having sex with me, whilst again making headlines when the bent prosecutor smeared it to the jury, fell apart in court when my QC asked him to describe this badge. He admitted it had been an “imaginary” badge. In which case, my QC asked him, how come he had described in detail that he tore it off and threw it away after leaving my house. He had to admit that had been “imaginary” too. And did a mime, removing the imaginary badge and throwing it, imaginarily, away. Two jurors openly giggled. Like when he boasted, in 1991, to a Scottish journalist that he had been in my “imaginary” group The Weathermen (except he claimed it was not imaginary, it was real, and he was a member). In court he had to admit that had been “a fantasy”. Like having sex with me. Which he hastily shouted - was NOT a fantasy. More juror smiles.

This was just one of many who brought Kenny Everett into his claims - Kenny came out as gay and is of course now dead; two reasons to include his name. Kenny, a dear friend, liked butch, moustachioed older men and had no interest in either women or boys.

All this illustrates the importance of good detective work; something I had failed to do in 2000 and had learned my lesson, which I now pass on to you in case, God forbid, you get accused in the future.

Another man said he was inspired to come forward by seeing the “victims” of Barry Bennell, the soccer coach, after his conviction, appear on TV (they do love publicity almost as much as compensation cash, these “victims”). Which was odd, as I’ve never been a soccer coach. I’ve been many things, even a Vile Pervert, but never a soccer coach. Then we discovered that the false accuser’s brother had, for years, coached an under 15 soccer team. Still does, we gather. Well, perhaps he’s now decided not to. Can of worms.

The importance of having a really good investigator (rare as a hen’s teeth) cannot be stressed too strongly. And also, when police take the stand, be prepared for them to rat on colleagues as fast as going down a drainpipe. One of the police in my case threw all the blame on her senior officer, now, conveniently, in a mental hospital.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5866801...laridges-waiter.html
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5856799...y-praised-brave.html

JK2006 wrote:
But what astonished me was discovering that both Surrey Police and the CPS had colluded in covering this up, as it would have damaged their case against me. The sister had been due to give evidence (if you could call it that) against me but they decided to assure her they had decided not to call her as a witness. So a child rapist walks free to rape again because they needed him to try to jail me, an innocent man. 


I'm confused.

Was it ever intended to prosecute this accuser for raping his sister, presumably relying on her account? Is she on the record accusing her brother of raping her?

Such things are beyond the scope of our legal system I'm afraid Randall; we can only go as far as the things we hear and are told by neighbours, contacts and others - and are said in court or in statements presented as evidence - example; we were not, as the defence, allowed to present to the jury our suspicions regarding the money earned at Claridges since we had no solid proof of it; fortunately the False Accuser himself burst out with that information in court in a moment of uncontrolled honesty during cross examination. I think the exact words were "I made £500 a week at Claridges". During questioning about financial motivation for inventing these claims.

What a foul individual.

Actually no; had a lot of charm; at one moment caught my eye from the witness box, winked and smiled. I had to smile back - the cheek of it! Several jurors noticed.

This is what gets me about this whole issue. Given the police and legal system are both now obviously run by idiots and lunatics we'll never know if Johnathan or if any of the other accused people actually did anything illegal. I am not here to defend Johnathan or attack him. Obviously that awful Oscar Wilde song is going to alienate people. But there is a principle of law here, you're not meant to get convicted just because you act guilty. How could any police officer or CPS official be stupid enough to believe that Claridges employed 14 year old waiters? Just like how could Rolf Harris have been convicted of an offense on the word of a man who said he had served with UK forces in Korea in the 1960s? A quick check on google tells you they had all left by the late 1950s. How can such important decisions about the protection of the innocent and the futures of the accused be made by a system run by people of so little intelligence? Who they hell are they employing as judges to preside over this rubbish?

On another thread we have the Canadian nun abuse nonsense-a 'survivor's group' who report multiple cases of nuns murdering children in an orphanage that were all 'covered up'. Yeah right, like post-war Canada had no proper police force or coroner's service.

It's strange how we think we are so advanced in the 21st century and so much 'progress' has been made when inside we are just the same ignorant medieval peasants that used to burn old women to death for being 'witches'.

Very well put, Anonymous.

The sentiment expressed in your final paragraph reminds me of something from Richard Webster along the lines of, 'It is precisely because we believe we are rational, and believe we have have progressed beyond that medieval mindset, that we are so prone to such hideous behaviour.' He said it rather better than that, but I haven't managed to track down the right essay.

there was a McDonalds in Picadilly in 1977?

There was a McDonald's in London / UK in 1977?

Wimby Burger maybe.

Good point Hedda - I see the first McDonalds in London was in Woolwich November 1974 - opened, as it happens, by my old mate Ed Stewart!

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-...d-s-opened-1974.html

JK2006 wrote:
Good point Hedda - I see the first McDonalds in London was in Woolwich November 1974 - opened, as it happens, by my old mate Ed Stewart!

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-...d-s-opened-1974.html

Always love Hedda's comments and ideas, always most insightful and full of information! When the so called "Trial" was in a state of non progress or regress or something!!! I had the same thought as Hedda and researched what MacDonald's had and the result was inclusive as I recall that it appeared Piccadilly was an early site in a change of strategy by MacDonald's but could not nail down the year.

But now in retrospect the bigger question is why did the police not check these stories (We know of course because they only wanted the stories without contradictory facts). The police in defense will say lack of resources and man power and so on..... But in this example. At most an hour's "work" at the maximum taking in finding someone to produce letter and send it that assuming HQ wanted an official letter with the request. Most likely not. Otherwise 5 - 10 minutes phone call to HQ and a request for an email confirming and maybe a photo showing I think maybe it was a Chinese restaurant noted? The historical sex trials that provided more information demonstrated how many facts could of been checked and nothing was done about by either side. As JK said he learnt from the first trial that one has to use one's our research and use others as well if possible.