Neelu & Sabine trial: Day 3

This week we are covering the trial of Neelu Berry and Sabine McNeill, who face charges of conspiracy to commit witness intimidation. The following report has been pieced together from several reports we’ve received concerning today’s trial activities.

Yesterday we described the prosecution’s opening statement in some detail, and noted that one of the witnesses—whom we may now identify as Father Paul Conrad of Christ Church, Hampstead—had spoken from behind a screen.

This morning, Christ Church Warden Paul Goss was the first of 3 witnesses to testify.

He was followed in the afternoon by parishioners Sophie Dix and Valerie Goss. All four witnesses had made police statements concerning the events of 22 March 2015; the statements were to have been used in the case against Neelu Berry, pertaining to her role in that day’s protests outside Christ Church.

These statements were published on Sabine McNeill’s Whistleblower Kids blog on 10 April 2015, and as we stated yesterday, the prosecution alleges that Neelu and Sabine conspired to publish them in order to intimidate witnesses.

Of note: all 3 barristers—defence and prosecution—have stated that they agree that the allegations of Satanic ritual abuse and cannibalism were untrue.

Why we can’t discuss the witnesses’ testimony…yet

While it’s legal for us to publish the fact that the 4 witnesses have now testified, HH Judge Worsley made it very clear in court today that none of the witnesses were to discuss their testimony until the jury has made its finding at the conclusion of the trial.

We understand that this means today’s testimony falls under the heading of ‘prejudicial information’, and since we are all very keen that justice should not only be served, but be seen to be served, we are observing the judge’s admonition to the letter, and not publishing any details of the witnesses’ testimony.

Once the trial has concluded and a judgement has been made, we may be able to discuss some aspects of the trial that will be of interest to our readers, but for now we’re keeping our lips zipped.

Hallway gossip

Since the chaos of Monday’s proceedings, when various supporters had to vie for seats in the (tiny) public gallery, things have quieted down somewhat in the court hallways.

Yesterday some of Sabine and Neelu’s sympathisers seem to have taken their cameras outside the court, where they busied themselves filming one another. We understand that at least one or two of them were cautioned about taking pictures of supporters of the witnesses, and today they seem to have abandoned that activity.

As a result of the limited seat allocations, fewer supporters from both sides have been attending. In fact, because no one can be admitted to the courtroom once the witness screens have been closed, several seats in the public gallery were free this morning. We understand that Belinda and another supporter were turned away at the courtroom door, no doubt to the disappointment of her friends inside.

A stronger police presence in the hallways seems to have had a calming effect, as no one has been heard accusing anyone of being a Satanist, a shill, or a paedophile in the past day or so—a welcome relief for many, no doubt.

Of course, the accusatory glares and grimaces haven’t stopped, but we suppose that’s to be expected, given that the defendants’ supporters are so firmly convinced that they are being confronted with 100% Gen-you-wine Satanic Paedophilic Baby-Eaters.

Coming up tomorrow

The trial will continue tomorrow, with the prosecution expected to wrap up, followed by defence arguments if they so choose. We’ll bring you those details this time tomorrow. Blackfriars Crown Court

27 thoughts on “Neelu & Sabine trial: Day 3

  1. An excellent update, the obvious appearance of prosecution witnesses is a very positive contribution to a fair trial, your reporting of today’s facts hopefully seems to tick all the boxes. Contemporaneous and cautious as to to prevent contaminating the trial

    I presume that tomorrow will see the defence team presenting their case and witnesses (if any)

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Thanks–I’m being cautious with our reporting, which I know our readers must find a bit frustrating at times, but I’d rather do that than risk any possibility of fouling the waters. I believe defence will commence tomorrow, yes.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Perhaps best to save that question until after the trial,

    SD is obviously a difficult issue for the defence and it would be terrible to give them any excuses what so ever to let NB and SM not have a fair trial


  4. “Of note: all 3 barristers—defence and prosecution—have stated that they agree that the allegations of Satanic ritual abuse and cannibalism were untrue.”
    Good to have this stated in court.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. An excellent move forward for everyone particularly as defence barristers must reflect the truth as told to them by their clients.
    It means the accused have now stated in court and for a permanent record under oath and I am sure they are being truthful, that they do not believe these claims.
    I congratulate them.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Good to hear that the hallway harassment had toned down. Though it’s ridiculous that it takes heightened security in order for these nutters to behave appropriately in a court. Thanks again for the updates.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Father Paul Conrad, Paul Goss, Sophie Dix and Valerie Goss should be commended for taking a stand.

    Very well done.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Thanks for the updates EC and i’m sure everyone understands the need for caution when reporting the court proceedings. Hopefully one day we will get to see Ella & Abraham in court also.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. You are being over cautious now. You can report what the witnesses said in court, if it is an accurate account, anything said in front of the jury. You cannot discuss that evidence or add to it in any way. It does not have to be a full account, it can be highlights. People reading this should not comment on the evidence or give additional info which might prejudice the trial.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I disagree. As someone who from time-to-time is involved in stewarding media reports of court cases I think E.C. is doing absolutely the right thing. – This isn’t a newspaper with all its resources, insurances and legal backup. I am of the firm personal opinion that there are individuals out there who would have liked nothing more than for a prejudicial dissection of the case to have taken place here. and that those same individuals would still like to see such a thing happen. – Ultimately, the shit they might be given the opportunity to stir by such an event would, I think, prove to be an impotent form of manure. But I don’t think they should be given any of the satisfaction nor the opportunity to piss yet more public money up against the wall by introducing such a thing into the court.

    I think too that’s it’s vitally important the verdict really IS clean and unfettered even beyond the standards required by the law.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I understand what you’re saying, and had considered reporting summaries of the witnesses’ testimonies, but I’m also mindful of the judge’s admonitions to them not to discuss their testimony with anyone. I do understand that it’s permissible to write about testimony that’s heard by the jury, but I feel I must balance that against the judge’s very clear instructions. I’d rather err on the side of caution, though believe me, I’d far rather be making a full report.


  12. Pingback: Sabine’s stunning lack of self-awareness | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.