Neelu & Sabine trial: Day 5

This week we have been covering the trial of Neelu Berry and Sabine McNeill, who have been charged with conspiracy to commit witness intimidation. We have been compiling our daily posts based on contributions from various people who’ve been attending the trial.

As we mentioned yesterday, the plan for today was for admissions to be presented to the court. Admissions consist of facts in evidence that are agreed to by both prosecution and defence—they represent common ground, as it were.

Admissions

Mr Attridge, who’d been ill yesterday, was back in court this morning, though not feeling 100%. He told the judge that the admissions were not ready to be presented yet, as the officer in charge had just handed him further information, and that Ms Zentler-Munro and Mr Byrne objected to several aspects of the admission in its current form. There was a break to allow the barristers to work out the admission.

When court and jury reconvened at 11:30 a.m., Mr Attridge read out the agreed-to facts for the record. There was some disagreement concerning which parts of Exhibit D, Sabine’s Whistleblower Kids blog, would be shown to the jury; this would need adjudication.

Statement from PC Black

A statement from PC Jennifer Black was read out, in which she described her arrest of Neelu on 24 April 2014 on a charge of witness intimidation. During the arrest, PC Black was unable to carry on cautioning Neelu, as Neelu began speaking over her, repeating that she was being kidnapped, that the police were endangering her life, that they were trying to murder her, that PC Black and her colleagues had no authority, that they would be removed from office, and so forth.

Statement from PC Williams

Another statement was read from PC Charlie Williams, who had visited Sophie Dix’s home to get her witness statement about the events of 22 March 2015, during the protest at Christ Church. Mr Williams said he included the location of Ms Dix’s home at the top of the witness statement sheet, since he wished to show the court how unsafe Ms Dix felt, due to her proximity to the church. The rationale was that the CPS would redact any information that ought not to be shown in court; there was no expectation that the statement would be published on the internet.

Adjudication of Exhibit D

The jury was dismissed during adjudication of parts of Exhibit D, which consisted of screenshots of Sabine’s blog.

Following a break for lunch, the jury was recalled, and Mr Attridge noted although he’d undertaken to redact the agreed-upon parts of Exhibit D, he’d been unable to do so effectively. It was decided to proceed to PC Betsy Davey’s testimony, excluding Exhibit D.

Witness: PC Davey

PC Davey described the 11 January 2016 arrest of Sabine McNeill, noting that Sabine had read a prepared statement in which she said she believed she’d published the witness statements but didn’t remember any details; that she was surprised it had taken the victims 10 months to tell her of any intimidation she had caused; that she was very sorry; that she was surprised to have been arrested past midnight; and that she had closed the Whistleblower Kids blog. (Apparently she had a change of heart shortly afterward, however, as that blog is still going strong.)

Submissions

The jury and witness were asked to leave while both defence barristers presented  submissions to the court. As it was late in the day, they were asked to return Monday morning at 10 a.m.

Both defence barristers made submissions asking the court to find ‘no case to answer’. Ms Zentler-Munro said there was no evidence that Neelu had published on Sabine’s blog, nor was there any evidence of an agreement that Sabine would publish Neelu’s witness statements. She noted that “foresight that she may publish was not sufficient for the offence of conspiracy”.

She characterised Sabine’s blog as “informational” rather than “condemnatory”, and said its purpose was to publicise their campaign as a whole, rather than to intimidate. In addition, she said, all the personal information revealed by the publications of the witness statements was already in the public domain, with the exception of the vicar’s route to church and Ms Dix’s address. The question was not whether the material was intimidating, but whether it was intended to be intimidating.

Mr Byrne agreed, adding that those involved in this campaign had a long history of publication of court documents when they were not allowed. He characterised the campaign as “obsessive”, and said that if the defendants were normal people who behaved rationally, their actions might be more easily interpreted as intimidating. However, this was not the case.

“In the absence of any explanatory motive,” he asked, “could the jury infer that the women who had done this had been trying to intimidate?” Rather, he said, their actions were part of a campaign, albeit an irrational and obsessive one.

Mr Attridge responded, “Yes, this is a campaign—one of the most oddball campaigns I’ve ever seen”. He noted that those involved seem unable to accept that they could be wrong in any way, and that anyone who opposes them is either involved in SRA, or is part of a cover-up. He urged that the jury be allowed to decide whether the defendants’ putting witness statements online would increase pressure on the campaigners’ targets and frighten them.

For example, he said, there were posts on Sabine’s site prior to the publication of the witness statements, saying things like, “Father Paul Conrad escapes after Sunday service”. This in itself is confirmation of the intention to intimidate the vicar: why else would they frame it as “escaping”? Intimidation first took place at the church, and then online.

“In what way are you advancing your campaign by publishing the vicar’s route from the church to his home?” Mr Attridge asked. “This was intimidatory. It goes hand in hand with the attitude of intimidation”.

Ruling on submissions

Despite Mr Attridge’s arguments, HH Judge Worsley ruled that there was no case to answer.

He said he was minded toward making restraining orders, but said that when the jury reconvenes on Monday he would direct them to a verdict of Not Guilty.

He did suggest that the CPS consider what terms they would like to see included in any potential restraining orders, and adjourned for the day. Blackfriars Crown Court

115 thoughts on “Neelu & Sabine trial: Day 5

      • Cheers EC.
        However this episode may conclude,a soap bubble lasts a long time only in a quiet medium.

        The only sustaining force such a gratuitous fabrication can draw on comes from its interior and there lies the seed of its impending implosion amidst of course much wailing and gnashing of teeth as the loathsome ship of fools slips gracelessly into its own sea of vacuous pus.

        A most unseemly carbunkle on the annals of human stupidity.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Yip, while my news feed is filled with people saddened by what happened in Nice, along with countless posts concerning Pokémon Go, the news feed of these conspiracy nuts is filled with making a mockery of the deaths in France and the Holocaust. Yet, these are the people claiming to be about light, love and healing.

      Disgusting people.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. Excellent reporting and much appreciated. I imagine the jury did not expect this when they were called up for service,lol. I can only guess what must be going through their minds after hearing details of this case and how bonkers the defendants actually are.

    The defence of these children and other victims of these nutcases goes on.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ….The girls at the next table are phoning a taxi are they? Best just order yourself another pint then!

      Like

  2. Jake Clarke has posted photos of the 2 children and others on his fb page!

    When are the authorities going to stop him committing these crimes?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Spenser appears to be avoiding Fred’s question. Or squirming, as it’s more commonly known.

      He also seems to be ignoring the fact that the children retracted their statements and that Abe admitted to beating the children. And that he coached them (and even uploaded recordings of himself doing so).

      And hilariously, he seems blissfully unaware that the McDonald’s in question is still there and that the one that closed down was a different one and closed a year before the allegations! LOL

      Liked by 1 person

    • Spenser has this case sewn up! His logic is impeccable – because Ricky Dearman has been threatened by whackjobs, he must be guilty. Quod erat demonstrandum!

      Liked by 1 person

        • One of the greatest mysteries of life is how people like Spenser negotiate their day while thinking they are surrounded by evil forces out to get them at every turn of the corner. How do they even make it to the local supermarket?

          The other great mystery is why Spenser’s parents named him/her Spenser Violet knowing we would read his/her mutterings and fall about laughing.

          Liked by 2 people

          • “Spenser” clearly knows bugger-all about this case, though he seems to have concluded that because some bloke was arrested for paedophilia in Minnesota 33 years ago, it’s proof that half of Hampstead are baby-eaters. To be honest, I think he got drunk, watched a few episodes of ‘Fargo’ on Netflix and got confused.

            And have you noticed how these conspiraloons are ok with regularly citing the Daily Mail and the BBC as sources when it suits their own twisted narrative? But if it reports a truth they can’t handle, it’s all oooh no, the mainstream media are in on the cover-up!

            Liked by 1 person

    • “Ameirca” – Land of the bland and home of the deranged. Also known as the United States of Arseholes.

      Like

  3. Has anyone noticed that Angie Dizzy-Powder is posting more and more posts which are blatantly antisemitic? I guess it had to happen sooner or later. It’s the troofer way.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I think she’s new to all this truther nonsense and like all those who just discover some new movement become a fanatical bore as though they know everything

      David Icke is similar and presents not one single theory that I have not been reading about since the 1960s but he’s been able to package it up and sell it skillfully.

      Power-Disney like most grifters has latched on to what she thinks will be something she can flog either through her ludicrous claims to be a “journalist” or begging for donations.

      She understands little of what she rabbits on about but is able to draw in a handful of fellow fruitloops like Clarke & Quaintanace who I think may have mother issues and have been attracted to her Mommie (Dearest) persona.

      It’s why I say the original hippy movement was a gentle thing that attracted 1000s of people looking for an alternative to the harsh commercialized world of the 60s but was perverted by events like the hideous Manson Family events who heralded the dark side.

      I know so many people who were boringly conservative and damning of people like me in the 70s who sought an alternative to the mainstream of life and then years later I would find them to be popping pills and snorting cocaine and preaching some nonsense and forgetting they previously condemned similar.

      Jesus Christ said similar (not comparing him to me ) but if he existed and his words (not those who wrote the Bible) are true he said his name would be ‘taken in vain” and used wrongly and that is evidenced all around us by the US far right Chritian Fundamentalists to the boring crackpots like Power-Disney who invoke his name while crucifying and condemning and bearing False Witness on 100s of people just because she read about it in a gutter newspaper, the extent of her ‘research’ or surfing the net. Lzy cow.

      Note she like many posts endless stories about convicted pedophiles whiles constantly claiming the courts & authorities are run by pedophile gangs.

      Cherry picking results is their forte.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Fellows has been around for many years with his lies and desperate attention-seeking stories. From what I have been able to glean it would appear also that Angie has a long track record as a con artist going way back to the 80s. – The Hampstead hoax itself is ‘relatively’ new, Angie merely jumped on the bandwagon along with a number of other Grifters.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I see that Quaintance is blowing smoke again on his Facebook page, seems he’s abel to fool some of the people for much of the time.

        Liked by 2 people

          • It would seem so…… I’m not sure it’s quite the right tack as it only equips them. It’s also a little concerning that the likes of Matt Davis is able to ask “What stirred this? – And that Rupert is able to provide his version of the truth.

            Liked by 2 people

          • And his creepy followers just believe everything he says without question, even when he’s contradicted by his own comments in his own videos. He’s like some creepy cult-leader. I foresee another Waco.

            Liked by 1 person

        • His followers are, by and large, just pig-shit thick Septics beholdin’ to the family’s money. Though I see some scrapyard chimp on this side of the Atlantic is also taken in by him. – Neds with money are still Neds though.

          Liked by 1 person

          • His mother is in denial. She claims it’s Rupert who is being threatened and even threatened Gabriella with her ‘arsenal’. Assuming that really IS his mother commenting, it would appear she is just as sick-in-the-head as he is!

            Liked by 1 person

          • “Assuming that really IS his mother commenting”

            That’s a very pertinent point, JK. I’m still leaning towards the possibility of a Norman Bates thing going on here, with Rupert’s “mum” actually being Rupert talking to himself. Just brace yourself when you search his attic

            Liked by 1 person

          • I’m inclined to agree Gabriella. Though the page I accessed through the profile looks very much like the work of some empty-headed ‘momsy’ type. If it really is her the woman must be at least around sixty, and was apparently a Nurse. It seems surprising that someone that unstable could hold down a nursing career. Of course, she could just be a bloater, has some non-clinical job in a hospital at one point, and brought her son up on a steady diet of psychopathy and bullshit? – But it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Rupert’s ‘mommy dearest’ is actually a close relative of Stooky Bill.

            Like

          • I think it is his mother. She has also commented on the infowars site. I presume her son Rupert submitted something and DIDN’T win. He has a YT video that is the right time and right category. He did get something selected as the “best” on there. Oh dear. See her profile on disqus.

            Too funny.

            CUT THE APRON STRINGS IT’S EMBARRASSING! YOUR MUMMY IS FOLLOWING YOU ON CONSPIRACY SITES BUT SHE ACTUALLY LIKES BAKING AND CRAFTS. I HAVE AN IDEA! DON’T TELL HER SHIT LIKE THAT FOR A START. GROW UP.

            Another thing, the town they are from, tiny, a large village really. Lots of sex offenders. Loads. Was looking for mugshots of Rupert, it’s always worth a shot. I didn’t find one.

            Liked by 1 person

    • The post on Jake’s page is disgusting and needs to be reported to the police. RD’s grandmother is a vulnerable person at her age – this should be emphasised to the police. She can’t be expected to know or understand the harassment against her online and she doesn’t have the capacity to defend herself. I used to feel sorry for Jake but he’s gone over the line now and needs to be dealt with.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Unfortunately Slander and Libel are civil matters. – Only those defamed can take action. Showing the children’s faces or otherwise identifying them however IS a criminal matter; and it’s to the great discredit of the British legal systems that they are not moving to act against those who have done so; and I include the hosting companies in that.

        Liked by 3 people

        • There’s also a case for harassment if he keeps it up, especially towards those who understand what’s going on.
          The police also have the option of giving him a good talking to, something he’s may have sadly lacked during his life. He doesn’t seem to have learned that you can’t damage people with impunity.
          Love and light Jake! You wouldn’t know it if you fell over it.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. There is nothing you can do, the police or the Internet prefects won’t do anything unless the people who have been falsely accused or had their pictures put up, make a complaint. Even then, it will be extremely difficult to make anything stick, as has been proved already.

    Like

  5. This business about the judge “directing the jury to reach a not guilty verdict” – it seems to defeat the object of having a jury and sounds extremely undemocratic. Or is it just legalese for “case dismissed”?

    Like

      • At least we have here the saving grace that the hoax itself has effectively been exposed and acknowledged as such by the perpetrators in court . But I have no idea why those who have breached the sexual offences act by identifying the alleged victims of a sex crime are not being prosecuted for that.

        It’s one battle – the war against hoaxers and grifters continues.

        Liked by 2 people

        • A normal person can see that the cries of an establishment cover up are ridiculous, but these are obsessed crazy twits that cant tell fantasy from reality, they will carry on posting pictures of the kids and innocent people and they will get away with it, when relying on the police and CPS always keep your expectations low, justice is very rarely done

          Like

          • What you’re saying makes sense, but let’s wait till Monday, okay? The trial isn’t technically over, and there may be added elements that we’re not aware of at the moment.

            Like

      • Hopefully assorted officers of the law have tucked away some spare change for the 200 trillion squid a certain individual will inevitably feel has been racked up in delusional entitlements.lol

        Like

    • Yes, case dismissed on the grounds that the prosecution have not put forward any evidence on which a jury properly directed could properly convict. That’s a question of law, which is the judge’s job, conclusions on the facts is the jury’s. It means he will direct them to acquit. There’s quite a good explanation in Wikipedia, search for “no case to answer”.
      Case dismissed, acquit, find not guilty, are all the same thing.
      Once they’re found not guilty the judge could still make a restraining order based on the facts he’s heard. That’s a new process which has only been around in the last few years.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Jake Clarke has panicked and removed his disgusting illegal post targeting an innocent grandmother. He must have seen our comments about reporting him to the police and thought he could squirm out of it. Jake (as I know you’re reading this): TOO F*CKING LATE, DICKHEAD

    Liked by 2 people

    • Well, good…but the fact that he has done that does seem to point to some understanding that what he did was wrong, and could land him in hot water with the police. Let’s see where this lands….

      Like

  7. Lol.

    Oh dear Jake. Just proves you know exactly what you’re doing kiddo.

    Don’t suppose next time the police are going to be so sympathetic to you.

    What did you do at Blackfriars CC on Monday 11th July as well?

    Tut Tut young man.

    You just can’t go identifying victims of alleged sexual assault crimes.

    At least doubly worse as they are young children.

    Disgusting thing to do and go tell Angela too, maybe she’ll listen to you.

    Ha ha I doubt it.

    Wonder which one of you is going to be next in the dock?

    Mmm…

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Anything other than charges of contempt of court regarding the original gagging orders was always going to be on shaky ground, why has this approach not been taken? That is what should be considered.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I do agree that the Pauffley decision, and the court order that preceded it, have been breached so many times that one really wonders why they were even issued. This doesn’t really pertain to the current trial, so I think it’s fair to say that had the court taken a sterner approach then, things might not have slid as far as they have now. My understanding is that Mrs Justice Pauffley wanted to downplay any reaction to her judgement last year, but I think that approach backfired horribly.

      Like

      • Doubt he can collect but I think he was making a very good point and it puts the website owners on notice that they too could be sued for hosting defamation’s.
        Of course in the Hampstead case, we know who the defamers are. Some have assets.
        Interesting that he is now a McKenzie friend and the time it took to get to court and for final judgement was very quick.

        Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.