BREAKING: Sabine & Neelu to face trial on 11 July

/ 15/04/2016

Sabine McNeill and Neelu Berry attended Blackfriars Crown Court this afternoon to attempt to have their case  on charges of witness intimidation dismissed. We can now confirm that the application to dismiss was refused. 

The matter is to go to trial on 11th July at Blackfriars, with a time estimate of 5 days. Both cases are now joined into a single trial.

Further, we understand that the judge did not reserve the matter to herself, which means that any judge may hear the 11 July case. If a case is unusually complex, a judge may reserve it to themselves, in order to save other judges from having to read in on a great deal of material to get up to speed.

Neither defendant has made any statements on this matter so far.

Addendum:

Please note that in order to avoid any appearance of attempting to influence this important case, this blog will not be making any commentary on the details of the matter. We will continue to report facts as they arise—such as court details and so forth—but we won’t be speculating on any aspect of the matter, nor making any claims about the defendants’ guilt or innocence.

We hope our commenters will understand and respect this.

Blackfriars Crown Court

Related posts

46 thoughts on “BREAKING: Sabine & Neelu to face trial on 11 July”

  1. on the other news neelu arrested the judge seeking £5 million compesation whilst Sabine and Belinda are cooking another scandal

    Liked by 1 person

        • Sorry to hear you’re not feeling well, MmeF! No, I have no idea–and to be honest, we’ll be trying to steer away from any such speculation between now and July. It’s especially important that this blog remain quiet on the details of the case, as we don’t want to damage the outcome in any way.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Witness intimidation has a starting point of 18 Weeks imprisonment on someone found guilty after a trial up to a maximum, of 5 years.

            Just a general observation, rather than specific to this case – any conviction for witness intimidation starts above the custody threshold.

            Time will tell the outcome in this case and its wise not to speculate on the outcome or the reasons until AFTER the final verdict, why help a defence case? Let justice run its course.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Supporters will continue their campaign in the weird belief that if they make enough Youtube videos or post enough accusatory Facebook posts about a poor father then the legal establishment will say “oh so sorry, we didn’t really understand there was a Satanist cult in Barnett so all is forgiven”.
    Their supporters are their enemy and they just can’t see it.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I wonder if their solicitors have told them to behave themselves now it has got REALLY serious? Will they actually start taking down libellous blogs and videos?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Frankly I amazed they haven’t been remanded at some point, given their propensity to breach bail conditions. Some time in custody, pre-trial, might have made them reconsider their position.

    Like

  7. I think – as JW mentioned – we need to be VERY mindful of not straying too far off the path of contemporaneous reporting of events… We must not speculate or try to second-guess the outcome or give the Muppets ANY excuse to waste any more of the court’s time than they have already!

    As a bit of light relief though, I see someone has left Jakey a note in crayon (so he’ll be able to read it) in relation to his new campaign to have the government withdraw all the ‘D’ Notices on all those files relating to crimes against children and by this means “declassify” them! – I know the lad’s ‘simple’ but REALLY? ‘D’ notices? Could he not even look them up on Wikipedia?

    Liked by 2 people

    • I’ve been trying to tell these nutters for ages that D-Notices were voluntary and issued only in matters of defence and of course the media who despite their propensity to squeeze a paragraph out of any tidbit generally are happy to comply for their own sakes but I honestly think the truthers prefer their own version of reality.
      Even so when Prime Minister, Harold Wilson had some newspapers defy D-Notices and a court case ensured in which the government lost. So they cannot be enforced and if the truthers think the media would not jump at any sexual misconduct accusation (Minister murdering baby and eating in hamburger) then they have been living in a cave for the last 30/40 years.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Experience – my own and others – tells me that there is little or no point in trying to engage with these people and direct them to the correct information, they have no real interest in the truth. Only in lining their own pockets and bolstering their own egos off the suffering of others.

        For instance, the Hollie Greig hoax is mentioned below. I can tell you with some certainty, for I have seen the emails myself, that Robert Green was given very good sound advice and information; and given every face-saving opportunity to take a different path that might (almost-certainly would) have kept him out of jail and caused the tiny grain of truth at the heart of the story to re-emerge. IIRC he fired at least one or two perfectly good lawyers who tried to help. Had Green ‘straightened up’ it would have caused another matter to become exposed, a very genuine connection between certain individuals, one of which has recently been jailed for sexually abusing children. – But contributing the THAT was of no interest to Green, McKenzie or any of the other various scammers and out-and-out criminals who were directing the show.

        It should come as no surprise to anyone that these people have no interest in ACTUALLY taking down any kind of abuser or finding any kind of truth or helping anyone but themselves. – They prey on the stupidity of their followers. And to do that means maintaining a fairy story – the truth tends to be rather dull!

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Perhaps Jake should have a look at the structure of reporting restrictions that often cover sensitive Court cases, rather than notices designed to protect national security and the reason such notices are normally observed He could -(0 if he’s bright enough), do a little reading about “The D-Notice Affair” it might help expand his knowledge further.

    Jake you are so far off track that you might as well be trying to walk to the next planet….

    Oh – Jake a little reading list for you:

    OSA And DA Notices
    POTA

    Click to access Reporting-Restrictions-Guide-2014-FINAL.pdf

    The modern definition of media
    Contempt of Court.

    Sorry Jake, its going to be difficult to find anything written on these subjects in crayon. Its not worth asking Angie, as reportedly none of her personalities are qualified to teach

    Liked by 3 people

    • It does rather illustrate how stupidly-lazy and ignorant these people are though…

      Really at the heart of a lot of these cases is the fact they won’t take the time to give themselves a basic education in what the restrictions actually are and why they exist… This is literally ‘schoolboy’ stuff that is taught in schools and in colleges at ‘NQ’ level… The restrictions are there to protect the innocent, NOT the guilty!

      Liked by 3 people

    • Mel Shaw is going on Uk Column with Brian Gerrish, perhaps she should ask him why he still bigs up the Hollie Greig hoax, and why he thought it was a good idea to have Robert Green on the other day, when he knows full well that Robert pleaded guilty at his trial to haracment and causing distress to innocent people, and he was never to discus anything to do with Hollie Greig or anyone else named in it.

      Liked by 1 person

        • Even that she looks on Brian Gerrish as the father she never had? The word garden path comes to mind, she’ll find out her self one day, that these people are all the same. I’m still waiting for all this evidence he supposedly had on the Hollie Greig case, and he didn’t even have the decency to tell Robert when he was on trial.

          Liked by 1 person

        • This may not be a popular view but I’m being cautious in my dealings with Melanie. In fact, I’ve ended my communications with her.

          I have a lot of respect for her as someone who’s moving her life forward and who has spoken a lot of sense on Angela and other tinfoil fruitloops.

          However, she is also very cosy with the likes of John Taylor, Jim McMenamin and Alan Alanson, as well as a number of other particularly nasty trolls who have been harassing me on her Facebook page. My attempt to alert her to these was met with a lot of unwarranted abuse and a threat to sue me for slander (!). (Ironically, the only reason I’d posted the Angie screenshots on her page in the first place was because she’d asked me to. I’ve now removed them.)

          Also, I find her borderline obsession with Brian Gerrish rather unsettling, especially as he has passionately promoted the Hampstead hoax, something to which she has openly objected. When I saw her refer to him as “the father I never had”, it became clear to me that the creepy old bastard had spotted a nice easy vulnerable victim and was grooming her for the fold.

          Anyway, for the record, here are Melanie’s view of Hoaxtead Research:

          EC, I won’t be offended if you disallow this comment 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

          • Why would I disallow it? I don’t think Melanie is by any means perfect, though I was very impressed with her video about Belinda. I hope at some point she’ll realise that she’s also being used by Gerrish et al, but there’s no guarantee that will happen.

            Like

          • Apparrently, she’s going to sue everyone, where have I heard that before, it would only ever show these people for what they are, would she really want her past brought up in a court of law, you can only sue some one if you have money, and you need evidence too,and you can only sue some one if they have money.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Slander you say? – It would be libel – but then they’d know that if they weren’t talking crap! Simple defamation up here, and you generally know you’re dealing with a complete and utter moron who does not know what they’re talking about when such a threat is uttered. I’d offer the opinion that the individuals you have named are ‘potless twats’, bullies and wilfully ignorant fools. And there is one, Gerrish, that I view as a criminally-dishonest shill who is as much an abuser of ‘lost souls’ such as Melanie Shaw as any other she might have encountered in her unfortunate life.

            Sadly, it does seem as if poor Mel is still firmly in the grip of the Ringmasters. I suspect she is simply parroting their objection to certain amateurs setting up stall on the road outside the bit top. So I’m inclined to suggest Danielle that your caution is well placed and an exemplar others should take note of. – Maybe one day she will actually wake up and smell the coffee?

            Liked by 1 person

          • DG, I certainly don’t agree with her support of Brian and UK Column but I still am interested in what she has to say in this interview and am hoping she’ll talk about what she has of late regarding the scammers who latch onto victims.

            Liked by 1 person

    • Another indication of sociopath behavior is that the person thrives on interaction and attention with others for it’s own sake. Most would block someone like Mel but Angie seems to encourage her posts. For her it would be a far worst thing to be ignored. She seems to thrive on the comments on here (to the point she keeps exposing her own fabrications).

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Good to see that the court is taking this seriously and giving it the consideration that it deserves.

    Jake comes over to me as gullible and naïve, rather than malicious. Sadly, gullibility and naivety can still lead people to carry out behaviours which hurt other people. Hopefully, having his naivety highlighted will sharpen him up and make him decide to be more careful about what he believes and how he behaves. That choice is his now and if he makes the wrong choice, he may come to regret the relationships he ruins in the process.

    Liked by 1 person

    • That’s admirable, Dave, and I really wish I could find the patience with Jake that some of you have. But personally, I think he’s a nasty little shit who needs to man up and stop slandering people and crying like a bitch when they object.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’ve only seen a couple of videos of him so perhaps haven’t got a full gauge on his personality. I was worried by his admission of having anger issues when people don’t agree with him. He certainly won’t see things any clearer if he keeps in with the likes of Angie.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Anyone pushing the Satanic Cult fantasy gets on my wick and Jake is one but I think he has developmental issues and is looking for some sort of meaning in his life but Angie really is abusing someone who probably needs therapy at best. For a person who claims she has been through so many traumas she has nil understanding of vulnerable people and draws them in and uses them for her own nefarious purposes.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I have to agree with Gabriella I’m afraid Dave. – I don’t doubt he is mentally challenged and to that extent something of a victim in his own right. But I don’t think the challenge he DOES live with is such that it mitigates his behaviour.

        Like

Comments are closed.