Today I hear. Let's hope the reporters report rather than just headline grab.
Let's make this the Nick thread.

Let's see if Mark Williams-Thomas decides to comment.

Not sure why this has been posted here Anon but a valuable reminder about the absolutely shocking IPP situation - another of the King's Army crusades.

JK2006 wrote:
Not sure why this has been posted here Anon but a valuable reminder about the absolutely shocking IPP situation - another of the King's Army crusades.

If you scroll down Ms Milne’s twitter feed you’ll see she’s reporting on the trial

"Mr Badenoch QC now turns his attention to Mr Beech’s use of the internet - “The device examinations revealed that Carl Beech had been extensively researching. The conclusion is that he had associated himself with the accounts of others and embellished them for his own purposes.”"
twitter.com/JEMilneSky/status/1128316965037248514

It would have been interesting to see what the results would have been of checks on other individuals' use of the internet in other trials. Presumably the proposal that accusers' phones be checked would also cover internet searches? If so, it's understandable why some might be reluctant to allow that.

“Mr Badenoch QC says that specific “Town House” sketch being presented to the officer from one of the three journals. He adds, when Mr Beech was asked for those journals, he has not provided them, the journals he was using for his own purposes were not recovered at any later stage
mobile.twitter.com/JEMilneSky/status/1128598129559969792


Sounds familiar

Still no acknowledgement from Mark Williams-Thomas that this trial is happening,why? This is massive news for sure.
Carl accused Savile also so I do hope this gets aired.82480

I think I posted on a previous Carl Beech thread that him being prosecuted, while others are not, puzzled me.

The case against Mr Beech seems to be that, after exhaustive investigation, no evidence supporting his story has been found. The only evidence of crime is his account. He also seems to have been caught out in a couple of fibs, that don't appear to have a direct bearing on his allegations.

But there are many court cases (Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, Max Clifford and Jonathan King, as well as many other not famous men) where exhaustive investigation finds nothing to support the allegations made. The only evidence is the complainant's account. Inconsistencies or provable untruths are often dismissed as being symptoms of trauma. This misleadingly transforms a reduction in credibility into an increase. These prosecutions go ahead, targeting the subject of the allegations, rather than the complainant who is in a similar evidential position to Mr Beech.

Can anyone explain?

You should follow the Twitter coverage of the trial Randall - absolutely fascinating. And yes; the question as to why he is being prosecuted yet others, far less "believable", are allowed as "evidence" in trials (including my own) is one the police and CPS will be being asked hundreds of times in future weeks.

Randall wrote:
But there are many court cases (Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, Max Clifford and Jonathan King, as well as many other not famous men) where exhaustive investigation finds nothing to support the allegations made. The only evidence is the complainant's account. Inconsistencies or provable untruths are often dismissed as being symptoms of trauma.
Perhaps more likely to happen if the evidence-gathering is mainly one-sided. If the digital devices (all, and not just mobile phones) of sexual assault claimants were examined as a matter of course, that would surely help to make the system fairer. Since her story had multiple parallels with an earlier Savile abuse story published on YouTube (a full seven months before she gave her TV interview accusing Rolf Harris, and available on YouTube for a very long time in the run-up to and possibly even during his trial - can't remember when it finally disappeared, but it was far too late, IMO), I'm certain that one of Rolf Harris's four accusers in his first trial used the internet to create her story. Indeed she told a women's magazine that she had become "fixated on child sexual assault cases", which nowadays would suggest online activity rather than burrowing around in a library. The similarity between the two stories was a small element of his appeal, but clearly wasn't deemed by the judges sufficient to warrant overturning the conviction, nor any of the other evidence his new legal team turned out about that accuser.

Hats off to Jordan Milne for the excellent minute by minute accounts of the trial a must read for anyone challenging that its a coverup.
This should be the leading story on any news programmes going out.

Jimmy Savile is being named in the trial this morning, Carl knew it was Savile bumming him because his voice a gold chain but did not see his face !!

Keep falling the trial here Jordan goes into great depth.

'M' wrote:
Keep falling the trial here Jordan goes into great depth.
Reporting minute by minute must require great powers of concentration and precis-writing. It must be quite exhausting having to do that every day. Hats off to her!

The trial.has resumed.


Jordan Milne
@JEMilneSky
·
3h
Today at the trial of Carl Beech the jury heard how Mr Beech met with Labour MP Tom Watson, a retired social worker called Peter McKelvie and a freelance journalist called Mark Conrad in the months before he came forward with his allegations to the Met Police in Oct 2014

This was almost two years after he told Wiltshire Police he had been abused by his late stepfather, as well as Jimmy Savile, who was also dead, and others he could not name.

Detective Sergeant James Townly of the Met Police said Mr Beech emailed him in Oct 2014. He said he could help with the ongoing investigation into allegations that high-ranking paedophiles had operated out of Dolphin Square.


The court heard that they initially met at a Gloucestershire police station for around 20 to 30 minutes and he explained he had gone through therapy since 2012. And that he was ready to speak to the police again.

Some great info below

mobile.twitter.com/JEMilneSky

'Jordan Milne
‏ @JEMilneSky

Mr Beech then explained how it was that Peter McKelvie and Tom Watson formed part of a "little group" that supported him to "put information out there to encourage other people to come forward" - referring to the blog posts he began to write in April 2014
9:21 AM - 22 May 2019'

This is very interesting. I can't find any indication that Tom Watson or Peter McKelvie are actually going to be witnesses in the case.

More from the trial
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...y-hit-and-run-attack

Another

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co....-a8945656.html%3famp

You see fantasies begin with grains of truth; if indeed a teacher had been knocked down and killed whilst changing a tyre on a motorway, such an incident returns years later in another form to validate another story. I well remember a school pupil at Charterhouse when I was young being killed on his bicycle in Godalming; he was similar age to myself and indeed there is a memorial stone to him, David Hutchinson, at the school today. Fortunately I have never needed to reinvent this tale especially not when encouraged by anyone wanting "a good story". I blame the media, police and bent lawyers who always encourage such enhancements.