Tuesday, 13 March 2018

The LIE Detectors !

Whilst researching my last post, I came across this. Yes really !

Now, read what happened to Colin Stagg. Bear in mind, this article was published in 1994.

Two pages about a lie-detector test ? Of course, some bent cops were still telling their press mates that Stagg was guilty despite his acquittal. 

Now, let's stop right there shall we ? Maybe you were aware that papers used lie-detector testing, I wasn't ! And, what was their rival's response ? Them that didn't get the story 

So, there they all are in 1994. The press and the cops in their seedy bars, gossiping and bartering to see who gets the best story. I only mention 1994 folks because that's when Paul Connew editor of the mirror, says he was approached with the Savile story. His excuse for not publishing ? Because Savile would sue ? Now consider this - IF, they had any integrity whatsoever, why not make the women take a lie-detector test BEFORE going public ? OK, we know these things aren't fallible, but still, the means were there, my guess ? They didn't believe them in the first place, because, if they did, the least they could have done, was tell their mates, in the pub, who'd tell other mates, and pretty soon, everyone would KNOW, wouldn't they ? Such as Lyn Barber -

 Or maybe Private Eye 

But, back to the victims of these - lower than sewer level, hacks and their fellow bent coppers etc. Poor Colin Stagg had to wait until 2008 to fully clear his name. DNA could have cleared him in 2004, but the authorities just couldn't be bothered. However much compensation Mr Stagg got, was never enough as far as I'm concerned !

 They had the DNA match in 2004, why did it take another four years to 'build' 'an unshakeable case' against a maniac who'd already been convicted of Samantha Bissett's savage murder ? 

The media waited in a hotel to interview Colin Stagg after his acquittal, immediately after. What would their story have been, had he NOT been acquitted ? Who would the News of the World give their £50,000 to, and for what ?

Next time - the other 'victims' of the Colin Stagg cops


Sunday, 11 March 2018

Sixteen Years a Guilty Man !

If you didn't watch 'Rachel Nickell - the untold story' on ITV this week, you should ! Why ? Well, among other things, because it finally tells the story of a man that, despite being innocent of ANY involvement in the horrendous slaying of Ms Nickell, was actually still considered by some in the Metropolitan Police, to be guilty. What's worse, is the fact that they told the press he was guilty, and that he got off on a technicality. Yes, really ! 

 You can watch it online, but you have to sign up. Sod that, I'll just re-run my recording and pick out important bits. Like this 

This is Bill Clegg QC. He was hired to defend Stagg who'd been arrested and charged in August 1993. One morning he was reading the newspaper reports of another murder, very similar  Rachel Nickell's. In no time at all he decided - That's the man who killed Rachel Nickell. 

The trial Judge also concluded that Stagg was not the killer and acquitted him. And that should have been it for both men. Only it wasn't ! The Daily Mail's headline said it all 'Rachel trial Judge in dock'. Justice Henry Ognall told Bruce that his decision that day 'led certain newspapers to conduct a vendetta against me for many years, as the man who let a man get away with murder'.

But that's the press for you. We've come to expect nothing more from 'certain (all) newspaper's now, but the Police ? Here's what we don't expect them to do. Back to Bill Clegg QC again, who tells Ms Bruce, on camera 

"The Police were actively briefing the press, that Colin Stagg was guilty after he'd been found not guilty. And they were actually telling everybody that he was a guilty man, who'd got off with a technicality"

"Do you have evidence that the Police were briefing the press in that way ?" asks Ms Bruce

"I know they did"


" They told me - the press" 

Now, imagine the scenario if you will. The Police and the mainstream media have spent the last year telling the whole world, you're the monster who murdered a beautiful young woman, leaving her child to cling helplessly to her dead body. You live in a council flat and you've just been acquitted of the murder. 

At 41.58 mins we see footage of Colin Stagg emerging from the Old Bailey, a free man. A woman's voice rings out one word - GUILTY.

Back home Stagg needs Police protection 

"It was like a lynch mob mentality and I thought, if these people get their hands on me I wouldn't stand a chance".

Much is made of the part that forensic psychologist and criminal profiler Paul Britton played in the Nickell case. He has been accused of failing to link it to two other cases including the one our aforementioned QC linked straight away. Britton denies this saying that he actually DID 'link the three cases, but the investigators told him they weren't connected'  

What ? It doesn't take a forensic anything to work out that there's a hell of a lot of folk shifting the blame onto this 'real life Cracker' as he was described back then. After all, it wasn't HIM who was running the Rachel Nickell murder case. It wasn't him who ran the 'Green Chain Rapes' inquiry. I honestly don't know who that was, as I type. I do know NOW however, that - had those in charge of the GCR listened to Robert Napper's own mother, Rachell, Samantha Bissett and her daughter Jasmine, would NOT have been murdered by this lunatic ! Here's Mr Britton on the Crimewatch appeal alongside Nick Ross and the detective who eventually apprehended Napper, Mick Banks

 Mick was not impressed by 'Cracker' Britton and when Bruce asked him WHY he's requested the services of the former, he made it quite plain that he hadn't. He'd been "TOLD to get him in". 

Now, let's get some chronology here shall we 

1989 - 'The Green Chain Rapes' began in Plumstead South London

15th July 1992 - RN murdered on Wimbledon Common

August 1993 - Stagg is charged with RN's murder

3rd November 1993 - SB and her daughter murdered inside her flat in South Plumstead

Yes, you heard me right - Robert Napper's own mother, contacted the police about the GCR. Here's a fuller picture of how Napper 'slipped through the net' from an article published in 2008

Of the three cases, Briton provided three different criminal profiles. The Wimbledon cops were adamant they had the right man in Stagg, despite the all too obvious similarities between the two murder cases, committed within eighteen months of each other, with Stagg being investigated and eventually charged, two months BEFORE the Plumstead horror. 

And this was indeed an horrific case, so much so that one of the crime scene photographers never worked again. Banks met with the Nickell team but they weren't interested - "They were convinced it was still Stagg. 100% that Stagg was the person"


 Despite being acquitted of Rachel Nickell's murder in 1994, it would be another fourteen years before Colin Stagg's innocence could be completely established, sixteen years after the crime. Stagg was just another victim in this crime, after the women in Green Chains Walk, Rachel Nickell's partner and family. And not forgetting Samatha Bissett's mum who died a few years after her daughter and THREE DAYS before her killer admitted his guilt. 

  Poor Samantha, Jasmine and her mother. The press interest in her murder was, by comparison, to use Mick Bank's word - neglible. But that's another story folks. As is this - 


And this - 

But that and much more, is for next time folks ! 

This blog is dedicated to Samatha Bissett, her daughter and her mam Margaret ! Rest in Peace

Sunday, 11 February 2018

What's the difference between Yewtree and Midland ?

Goodness Gracious guys and gals, I'll never get to retire at this rate. Or, maybe I will ! After all, surely it only has to be a matter of WHEN, not IF, the Savile accuser's will be put to the same scrutiny, as the likes of them accusing Lords and dead Prime Ministers. 

Fleet Street are out for the Operation Midland accusers, 'Nick' and Esther Baker. The articles have been coming thick and fast. Here's bits of the latest one from today's Sunday Times 

 You can pay to read the whole thing here if you like. Alternatively, you can read the bits I picked out, as of particular interest to me !

I've already tweeted my interest to the author - James Gillespie. Let's see if he reads this, and responds accordingly ! 

I really shouldn't have to ask Gillespie to read my blogs, should I ? Anyone with a stem and a brain attached to it, can work out the point I'm making. Nevertheless, here goes - 

The first point I should like to make is this - 

WHY shouldn't someone in a secure psychiatric patient be granted Core Participant Status in Alexis Jay's IICSA gig ? OK, I see where he's going with this, and I agree with him. But, wasn't an ex-Broadmoor patient deemed a credible witness, when it came to Savile ? 

Next, further dismantling of Esther LOL

So, one alleged victim, is attacking another ? Welcome to twitter Mr Gillespie. Where have you been this past six years ? 

Now. listen up, because JG's making sense isn't he ? The claims against the late Lord Janner in the civil courts, have been dropped. But they will be ventilated again and again in the course of the Jay IICSA charade, unless these people are removed as Core Participants, or arrested, which would be my preference, and charged with attempting to pervert ... 

Next Gillespie identifies Tom Watson's involvement in the matter. 

And, what 'evidence'  did have upon which to base his subsequent campaign ? Well, very little according to JG 

 Now, let's get to my point shall we ? It lies in the next few snippets 

 The Police adopted a flawed approach ? The same 'approach' they'd used in Operation Yewtree, as it happens ! 

Read that last paragraph again, and tell me what's wrong with it ? Hundreds of witnesses DID NOT come forward during ANY investigation. We know this, because, there was NO Police investigation. The Police merely encouraged 'victims', not 'witnesses' not complainants, but 'victims' to 'come forward'. They struggled to get very many in the first few days. Then an added incentive came along - MONEY ! Just a week after Exposure aired, the fragrant Liz appeared on our screens and across the airwaves ! 

 Strange, how that 'page' in Slater and Gordon's history appears to have been wiped !

Are you getting my drift Mr Gillespie ? 

 Another bell not ringing for you Mr Gillespie ? What evidence beyond the unsubstantiated accounts of a handful of individuals and fantasists' has anyone produced substantiating ANY of Savile claims ? 

And there's also the matter of the part you yourself played in this nonsense. Remember this ? 

 Politics !

Tuesday, 30 January 2018

Not 'Special' enough

Daniel Janner's attempt to be granted Core Participant Status, as a 'special witness' has been rejected by the independent investigation into child sex abuse (IICSA). 

I do like how these last few press reports have been framed, no pun intended. They really want folk to know the caliber of the folk who've been awarded such 'status', refused to Mr Janner. The 'fantasist' and the convicted serial paedophile, oh dear

 Now, I've been pondering the reason WHY Mr Janner should need, or want such status, when he already has it. 

 Now, maybe I'm a little slow folks, because the penny has only just dropped, he wants Core Participant Status for himself, as a witness, which is what the liar and the sex offender presumably are. In other words, he wanted to be able to cross examine those who continue to maintain that his father abused them. Hard not to feel sorry for the man, he's just doing the best he can for his late father.

It's not altogether clear, as to whether his established CPS (yes really), automatically entitles him to legal expenses, the press appear to be inferring that it doesn't. It's all a tad confusing, so let's go back to the beginning shall we. Here's how Mr Janner's IICSA journey began 

Now, folks whats really interesting about this piece, is the bit on the end, the so-called remit of this inquiry 

Hold on ! The BBC, the armed forces, mosques, immigration service ? Where the heck are these on the list of Core Participants. I see the churches, I see the Police and local authorities, but the BBC and mosques ? Nope, I don't see them. Let me know if I missed something ! 

Oh, and by the way, I have double checked - the IICSA itself does actually stipulate the above. Yes, really 

Here's that list again