This is an excellent article - long and detailed - in which Watts makes many very good points with which I agree. My two massive reservations are - I believe Exaro encouraged Beech far beyond the level of responsibility because it was"a good story" - admittedly the same motive that runs the entire media (including this). And that, not wishing to admit this even to himself (understandably), Watts sees almost every aspect only from one side. But that doesn't stop him saying many things which are spot on (such as - the sentence is far too long). His best point is - why didn't the defence call all those cops who declared and thought Beech "credible and true"? The answer is, of course, this would have opened a far bigger can of worms than the Establishment wants (and includes possibly leading to Watts himself facing charges). Society has decided one way - but I think Watts may well be right and the pendulum swing is about to go to the other, equally wrong, extreme.

Do read this, though. Apart from anything else it is very well written.

www.foiacentre.com/news-Nick-trial-Carl-...arriage-justice.html

I think that their evidence would deemed inadmissible, simply because it's not they who are on trial. Can't bring in bad character (or evidence that makes them look foolish) if they are not the defendants.

They should be.

I tend to agree - but his level of self delusion and original self promotion on the back of this gravy train make him well off my Christmas forgiveness list.
the point about why the defence didn't call - or even mention - the actions and statements of the police is a valid one...

could it be that defence lawyers were told that to keep the trial manageable - certain evidence would be deemed inadmissible?
Anyone who believe s that courts hold trials to hear the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth is incredibly naive.
Apart from the danger of things going wrong from a judge's perspective, if we had to hear "the whole truth" every major trial would last 2 years minimum...

Oh yes Patrick - ironic that had the trial been conducted correctly, Watts himself might now be in prison. But that doesn't make his points wrong. His legal points about certain witnesses being allowed is well covered - he, too, thinks they would probably have been disallowed but that doesn't answer the question - why didn't the defence try? Surely because they thought such witnesses might damage their case. But my assumption is that they would open Pandora's Box - revealing just how in thrall to media police and lawyers and judges are.

"The fact that the “dishonest” crime may have sprung from the childhood abuse is invariably conveniently ignored".


This is an humongous insult to those of us who suffered sexual abuse (as well as other forms of abuse) as children.

Some of those in authority, such as prisons, probation and SS spout the same rubbish time and time again. "40% of people abused as children will go on to commit sexual offences".

That means that 60% do not go on to offend sexually. that's the majority. And I have to wonder how many of those in prison falsely use the "I was abused as a child" card when it comes to parole.

Statistics are not always accurate.

Sorry - I posted wrongly here! I hadn't seen the bit for the name, and just typed "Credible and True Coppers". Sorry about that! I've slapped my wrists and won't do it again.

"I wondered whether Beech might, as a result of the ruling, change his plea on the PCJ and fraud charges to guilty, so hopeless were his prospects with such prejudicial material to be placed before the jury. He would have been rewarded with a lighter prison sentence for a swift end to a trial that was expected to last up to 12 weeks. Of course, he did not".


Actually, that is not entirely true. If he had admitted guilt at the earliest opportunity,police station interview, then he would have had a 3rd knocked off. The more a def allows it to go on, the less time knocked off. In this case it was a very long trial with hours and hours of preparation for both sides. Had he admitted guilt on the first day the judge might have knocked a little off, but it would certainly not be substantial.

Initially, Watts suggested the evidence about Harvey P should have gone in. It would have been admissible and would not form grounds of appeal, as he believed.

With regards to the police officers, it wasn't they who were on trial, so I think that would be the reason why they weren't called. Also, what with the length of the trial it's likely that that evidence would have been deemed to be "irrelevant" or inadmissible. Having said that, I have seen police offers give evidence and were made to squirm in the witness box. But those tend to be very much shorter trials.

"The prosecution suggested that Beech was motivated by money. The problem with that interesting theory was that Beech made his claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) four years before he went to the Met – at the request of the Met, it should be noted – to make the allegations that formed the overwhelming bulk of this case".


His claim might have been made before he went to the Met, but he would not have received a payout until the police became involved. He would have to provide that all-important crime reference number.

Initially, Watts suggested the evidence about Harvey P should have gone in. It would have been admissible and would not form grounds of appeal, as he believed.


Sorry. That should be "... It would NOT gave been admissible".

I do agree about the bad character of the images though.

If the appeal succeeds, I think it may well be on that ground. Problem is, CA do not like to allow appeals of this nature.

I don't think the CofA will throw out the conviction but do feel they will (and should) cut the sentence; so blatantly crowd pleasing.

I was just going to post that link JK and make similar observations about Watts although I disagree on some and I'm not convinced his sole claim that Beech being found Not Guilty does not mean Harvey Proctor, Lord Brammall are guilty..but he makes very good points.

Just shows that Great Minds Think Alike even when one is far more gorgeous and not nearly as rich as the other.

Very glad you posted this, JK. I read Watts' article last night, and tried (unsuccessfully) to put together some thoughts on it early this morning.

I have some sympathy for the views Mr Watts expresses here:The falsely-accused brigade and its cheerleaders in the media have exposed their hypocrisy in their celebration of this trial. If they were genuinely interested in fair justice, they would not be ignoring the dubious way in which Beech was found guilty.

In truth, members of the falsely-accused brigade are not remotely interested in justice, but in proclaiming with a pseudo-religious fervour that they or their loved ones or their friends or associates are innocent of accusations of sexual abuse levelled against them.

But when assessing the truth or otherwise of allegations of sexual abuse in particular, as some lawyers have been prepared to admit, the criminal justice system is often hopeless. And that is a problem both for those who have been sexually abused and for others who have been falsely accused. I was surprised (naive of me, perhaps) to see how gleefully many on Twitter greeted Beech's conviction, and how quick they were to dismiss arguments which could well apply/have applied in their own (or simmilar) cases.

It is almost as though we don't mind being mistreated, as long as we can enjoy the spectacle of others suffering a similar mistreatment. Very primitive.

One pleasant thing about reading here is the relative lack of ill will, and I guess this is in part down to your own positive outlook. (Perhaps just allowing yourself a little schadenfreude where Waxy Maxy is concerned!)

Some of the points Watts makes are well worth considering, but some care is required when examining his claims. For example:But ‘Nick’ had told the Met in interview that he did not know who had intervened to stop Proctor cutting his genitals.However, Watts himself (h/t @BlogBandini) tweeted during the trial:At one time, the defendant tells #NickTrial, Edward Heath stopped Harvey Proctor from hurting him by cutting him with a knife. Perhaps this is another time Proctor was trying to cut another part of Beech's body?

I've some respect for the way Watts has stuck with this, but if he's so wrapped up in it he is misleading himself, at the least we need to check the factual basis of any claims he makes.

I'm not so worried about factual proof for claims Misa - in sex cases often there can be no proof other than forensics or witnesses. And my main beef with Watts is that he deliberately or accidentally avoids the truth; these days we all tend to want to support our own extreme views (it's simpler) especially the media which only wants "a good story". Justice should be better than that. And it may be unfair that many abusers "get away with it" but even one falsely accused wrongful conviction is terrible and must not be allowed in a civilised society.

Sorry, JK. I didn't make myself clear. I'm not referring to facual proof of claims of sexual abuse, I'm referring to Watts' claims about what was given in evidence. The example I cited seems to suggest that he is, at best, confused about what Beech was claiming. On your broader point, I agree completely.

JK2006 wrote:
(such as - the sentence is far too long)

Poppycock. I'm worried you might be turning into one of those social media conspiracy theorists. The sentence reflects not just that he made false child abuse and child murder allegations (about the worst things someone can be accused of, short of causing the Holocaust), but the sustained deception, involving fake email accounts, interviews with police and media, waste of police resources, the diversion of police resources from real abuse cases, giving false hope to families of children who were genuinely murdered during the period (there are several unsolved cases), claiming compensation on a false basis, possession of abuse images and attempting to shift suspicion for this matter onto a juvenile (his own flesh and blood, ffs) for said crime, and the deception was maintained over a lengthy period of time.

In my view, it's about right. On the lenient side if anything. Before the full details of the deception came to light, I had some sympathy for Beech. I now have sympathy for his family, but none for him.

Each to their own. I think he should be in Broadmoor being treated and not let out until considered safe for society by which time he will hopefully have realised his lunacy. I think it's the enablers and trainers who should be locked up or at least stopped from enabling, training and believing others.

I have my doubts that someone criminally insane could be so calculating and devious. It's said that people who're insane don't generally know they are, so if they were fantasising about abuse they wouldn't realise it was all in their head. It seems to me that Beech knew he was lying, e.g. creating an e-mail account for "Fred", the supposed witness to his alleged abuse.

I think, if he really thought he'd been abused, inventing a witness would be quite a sensible idea.

Did his defence argue diminished responsibility? If there were grounds for arguing that he was insane, surely they'd have done that.

I gather not and I assume he refused to allow it because he really does not think he'd mad. Whether he thinks he was abused by those people or by other people, I have no idea. Whether he simply wanted to make money and knew the entire fantasy was made up, I have no idea. Madness comes in many forms and thank God his consumed him so much that he made horrendous (for him) mistakes - enabling justice to be done. Which it HASN'T been done in most other cases and is why so many are languishing in jail, innocent of the charges against them. Indeed - that happened to me. And would have happened to Lord Bramall, Harvey Proctor and others, if the police had assisted Barmy Carl as they do most everyone else. In which case those innocent men would also be in jail, Beech would be acclaimed a hero by the media and the public and would be living in compensated luxury. But just because Police, Media (Watts, Exaro etc) and Lawyers for once let the false accuser down (they had no choice - he was SOOO bonkers), justice was done. As it was for me - only because I luckily had a damn good, honest Judge. My False Accusers were as bad as Beech and deserve longer sentences but they won't face Justice as Danny Day hasn't and neither have Cliff's FA's or Gambo's or Jim Davidson's or Jimmy Tarbuck's... because police and media and bent lawyers would then be exposed.