My views on crime and what we need to do about it
The true story of the murder or Rachel Nickell by Robert Napper and the attempts by the police to put Colin Stagg in the frame.
(If you are based in Britain, click on the image on the left, or on the title, to buy The Wimbledon Common Murder: The Shocking Story of How an Innocent Man Nearly Got Sent down for Life! If you decide to join audible.co.uk, please make this book your first purchase.)
To those who think that the British criminal justice system is superior to the American legal system – this book will serve as a rude awakening!
The shocking story of an innocent man who spent 13 months on remand and 14 years in limbo because of police shenanigans and the incompetence of a psychologist working with them. Colin Stagg spent thirteen months in jail awaiting trial for the murder of Rachel Nickell – a crime he did not commit. The case against him was weak from the outset, but was a classic example of the way in which facts can be misrepresented in the hands of professionals, be they lawyers, psychologists or police officers.
When the case against Stagg collapsed, his life was made a living hell by the tabloid press, portraying him as a man who had got away with murder. Police leaks, and a book by a psychologist who had assisted them, led to the ongoing perception that Stagg was a murderer. This nightmare carried on for fourteen years until a “cold case review” identified faults in the original investigation. This culminated in the identification of the real culprit – a man who had indeed slipped through the net and gone on to kill again…
(If you are based in the United States, click on the image on the right, or the title to buy The Wimbledon Common Murder: The Shocking Story of How an Innocent Man Nearly Got Sent down for Life! If you decide to join audible.com, please make this book your first purchase.)
It is becoming an almost daily story: scum of the earth viciously assault innocent person, scum of the earth caught, scum of the earth brought before judge and found guilty, scum of the earth told they are very naughty boys (or girls) or have done a terrible thing and then sentenced to suspended sentences or community service and turned out onto the streets.
Time and time again it happens and time and time again we wonder if the judge speaks the English language.
“You did something very wicked and instead of punishing you I am going to spout a load of hot air and then let you go. This is how our criminal-friendly judges behave. And Judge Shani Barnes is no exception.
In this case the scum of the earth are: Kieran Hawker (18) Robert Elsey (19), Aaron Henery (18), Dean Riley (19), Anthony Patton (27) and two seventeen-year-olds who cannot be named because the law protects criminals who are younger than 18. These namby-pamby little mama’s boys – who haven’t got a testicle or a brain cell between them – conducted a vicious assault on three innocent people without any legitimate reason. For the full story see here.
But scum doesn’t grow in a vacuum. Where are the people who brought them up? The people who were supposed to teach them right from wrong? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would have to conclude that those who brought them up are scum too.
There is really only one cure for people like this – a taste of their own medicine!
A twenty-year-old-woman, Naomi Oni, had acid thrown in her face by a woman who turned out to be a former friend of hers.
Naomi Oni was walking to her home in Daggenham from Victoria’s Secret in Westfield Stratford, where she works. At 12:40am when she was five minutes from her home and talking to her boyfriend on the phone, she heard some one behind her. She turned round to see a woman who then threw acid in her face, blinding her in one eye and causing severe visual impairment in the other.
It later transpired that the woman who carried out the attack had once been her friend.
Once again another criminally-friendly British judge has demonstrated her readiness to pervert justice in order to spare a vicious thug the prison sentence that any honest judge would know that she deserved, because she felt sorry for the thug’s children. She also let off the slag’s “partner” and cousin – who were also guilty – despite the fact that there were no legitimate grounds for her to do so.
The slag in question is 26-year-old Amanda Lowe.
The incident, that occurred at 8:15 pm on May 21st of this year, began when the slag Amanda Lowe shouted verbal abuse at Khuram Nisar calling him a “fucking Paki” and “terrorist” when he was minding his own business in Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester’s city centre. Mr Nisar responded by telling 26-year-old Wesley Earls (i.e. the partner of the slag) to control the rude aggressive woman.
At that point, Earls and Lowe (who have had a baby together but haven’t bothered to get married) viciously assaulted Khuram Nisar, assisted by Lowe’s cousin Daniel Wray (a twenty one year old little boy who feels safe pretending to be a man when he has the backing of another man and a woman! ) Earls punched Mr Nisar to the ground while Wray punched him in the head. Rowe kicked him viciously in the head, leaving the innocent man with cuts and bruises both to his body and his head.
The slag Lowe (who was pregnant at the time) even showed her total lack of responsibility for her children, aged eight and four months, by leaving them unattended in order to participate in the attack. This also showed her brazen disregard for the safety and health of her unborn child.
After the attack, the slag was so excited by her racist crime that she re-enacted the vicious kick for passes-by while wheeling along the four month old that she had previously left unattended while participating in the vicious assault. All three of the scum were arrested 20 minutes in Oldham Street nearby.
At the trial – faced with overwhelming CCTV evidence – Lowe pled guilty to Racially Aggravated Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm, whilst Earls, and Wray pled guilty to plain Actual Bodily Harm. Needless to say, they all had form – and plenty of it. Between them the three scum bags had 21 previous convictions – that is, actual offences for which they have been convicted. (NB It is unusual for habitual criminals to be caught and convicted of all the offences that they commit.)
In the case of Amanda Lowe, this is her fourth conviction in six years. She has convictions for assault and disorderly behaviour going to when she was 17. And it should come as no surprise that she committed such a vicious crime given that she has failed to comply with previous community orders. This in itself should have been enough for the slag to get a custodial sentence.
But what did judge – Lindsey Kushner QC – do?
Well before I answer that, let’s look at what did she said?
First she said that “It is fantastic to have this CCTV footage. It is good to see the events as they happened because they are horrifying when you see them.” So there was no doubt about what they did and what the judge knew.
Then she said to Lowe, “Your record is terrible for violence given that you are 26 years of age. The damage you are doing to your children – there at the time and seeing you drunk, the risk you put them at – is disgraceful.”
So much for the effect on the dirty little slag’s own children. But what about the effect on the victim of the violence. The ever-so -perspicacious judge noted that “People have been killed and maimed through being kicked in the head.”
So did she sentence the slag to a custodial sentence?
Er… no. Instead she gave Lowe a 12-month sentence, suspended for two years, and ordered her to attend a programme for women offenders. She explained that she was not sending Lowe to prison because of the effect this would have on her children. In other words Lowe was getting a get-out-of-jail-free card because she had children – even though she was (and is) endangering her children and is clearly unfit to be a mother.
However the judge’s lenience also extended to the two men who were also given 12-month suspended sentences together with a community order each.
But the fearsome judge warned the three scum-bags that this was their last chance and if they re-offended they would go to prison.
I doubt it. Especially if they come before another judge like Lindsey Kushner QC.
To read more and to see CCTV footage of the attack click here.
SWITZERLAND – the Jungfrau Region: A wealthy young man dies in a skiing accident.
SAN FRANCISCO: A few months later, two homeless men stagger into a bar. One of them leaves his friend there, but minutes later the friend is stabbed by another homeless man: George Stone.
Arrested at the scene and charged with murder with special circumstances, Stone asks for Alex Sedaka to represent him. However, it soon becomes apparent that this is anything but a straightforward case of violence between homeless people. After all, how many homeless people have $2000 on them. And why would a homeless killer leave such a large sum on his victim? Also… why is the British Prime Minister taking such an interest in the murder of a homeless “John Doe” over five thousand miles away?
But when Homeland Security becomes involved and an attempt is made on the accused man’s life, both Alex and the DA realize that matters are running out of control. And as powerful forces up the ante, Alex also has to face the fact that his client isn’t the only one in danger.
You can buy Hello darkness, my old friend (an Alex Sedaka thriller) from amazon.co.uk. Outside the UK, it is available from amazon.com.
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Amanda Knox is to tell her story in a book to be published by HarperCollins!
But not everyone is happy. For instance, Nick Ferrari said on the radio a few days ago that he had not the slightest desire to read it. Now I am a great fan of “Old Nick” and agree with him on many issues. But I can’t help thinking that on this occasion he is wrong. Whilst I am deeply reluctant to put money into Amanda Knox’s pocket, I for one am very anxious to hear her side of the story and discover what she has to say. And I will be hanging on to her every word.
With the aid of a competent ghostwriter, Miss Knox will finally be able to tell us which of her of her several conflicting versions of events is actually true. Was it the one where she said that she and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, happened to be at Sollecito’s flat on the whole night when her “friend” Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered – an event so traumatic that it sent Miss Knox into cartwheels? Or was it her story that she was at home, but in the kitchen and that she put her hands over her eyes to block out Meredith’s screaming? (Her current story is that it was the former – but will she stick to it for the book?)
She might also tell us why she falsely accused Patrick Lumumba, an innocent man. Her story so far is that she was forced to do so by the Italian police. But is that true? Did the Italian police have any reason for wanting to frame Lumumba? Did they have some grievance against him? Is there any evidence that they harboured any animosity towards him? Was there any history of any conflict between him and the police of such magnitude that they would want to frame him for murder? Or did they simply select him at random and not bother to check if he had an alibi? Indeed did the Italian police really force Amanda Knox to say anything false? Or was this just another lie on the part of Amanda Knox to explain away the fact that she made a false accusation against an innocent man? And if her explanation for why she lied does not stand up to scrutiny, then what was her real reason for lying? Lies are usually self-serving. But how could she benefit from falsely accusing an innocent man?
That is, however, the least of her ghostwriter’s worries. They already have their work cut out. They will probably have to tone down the number of times the words I and me are used. It may be Amanda Knox’s story but the publishers won’t want to over-emphasize her self-obsessed, narcissistic perception of herself as some kind of latterday Joan of Arc.
Knox’s boyfriend and fellow acquitted former accused, Raffaele Sollecito, is also apparently writing a book about the case – or having one written with his name attached. But Meredith Kercher herself is no longer with us. Her voice has been silenced forever by the scum of the earth – which gives Knox and Sollecito carte blanche to say what they like without fear of contradiction.
And this lies at the heart of the matter, because Meredith Kercher’s story will tragically – and unjustly – never see the light of day. And hers is the book that all decent people would truly want to read. But that would take a real ghostwriter.
It is easier to get sent to prison in England for contempt of court than for assaulting a fellow human being. I don’t mean that it is easier to prove. I mean that once proven, contempt of court is more likely to result in imprisonment than assault – even a gang assault that leaves one’s victim seriously injured.
In the case to which I refer, a tribunal of arrogant bullies – sorry judges – has sentenced a juror by the name of Theodora Dallas to six months imprisonment for carrying out internet research at home on the defendant in at a criminal trial on which she was sitting. The tribunal, consisting of Lady Justice Hallett, Mr Justice Openshaw and the risibly named Lord Judge, also denied their victim – sorry the convicted party – leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Of course she can apply directly to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. But the fact that the judge’s denied her this right – in a case that obviously has implications that require the Supreme Court’s attention, shows that they are more concerned with flexing their muscles than with the administration of justice.
Now first of all – lest any criminals or their friends accuse me of missing the point – let me stress that checking out a defendant online IS contempt of court and that the jurors were all warned not to. And contempt of court can draw a custodial sentence. But this was a first offence and we are always told – by our judges no less – that first-time offenders should be treated with leniency. At least that is what we are told when they have committed assault or affray or even ABH.
Yet apparently those offences are not as serious, in the eyes of our esteemed judiciary, as checking out an accused online. It seems that the same judges who let violent criminals off with non-custodial sentences and who water down the sentences of even the most serious violent offenders, choose to get tough on a woman who committed contempt of court. In other words, beat the crap out of a private citizen by all means but don’t dare ruffle the feathers of the judiciary.
Unfortunately for their Lordships, ruffling the feathers of judges is what I do. So let’s consider the judges who reached this decision.
Only a week ago, Lady Justice Hallett reduced the prison sentence of Viktor Akulic who had raped a woman, knocked her to the ground and stamped on her head. Then when the woman reported the attack to the police, Akulic went round to her home and threatened to kill her. Akulic had already spent half his adult life in prison for other offences, including the rape of a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL. And Lady Justice Hallett KNEW ALL OF THIS. Yet although it would be obvious to all but a mental defective that Viktor Akulic WILL re-offend as soon as he gets the chance, Lady Justice Hallett and her co-conspirators – sorry judges – reduced his sentence from a minimum of eight-and-a-half years before he could apply for parole to seven.
Okay so much for Lady Justice Hallett, but what about Lord Judge? Well he’s an interesting case. In 2009 parliament finally decided to get rid of that legal dinosaur that allowed people who kill their spouses to use their spouse’s adultery or infidelity as a defence, watering down murder to manslaughter. The new law stated that “In deciding whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity IS TO BE DISREGARDED.” So although loss of control could reduce murder to manslaughter, alleged infidelity (and it was very easy for the man’s lawyer to invent such infidelity) could no longer be used to achieve such reduction.
This reform was long overdue for many reasons, including the fact that the old law was almost invariably used by men to get off the hook for murdering their wives and almost never in those rare cases of wives murdering their husbands. But Lord Judge decided that he and his colleagues didn’t have to bother with something so trivial as the law or the will of parliament (nor indeed for the right of women not to be murdered). So he decreed – in brazen defiance of the law – that infidelity could be considered as adding to the “potency” of any other conduct which might cause a loss of self-control.
In other words, Lord Judge knowingly subverted the will of parliament and willfully deprived women of adequate protection of their right to life, by deliberately misinterpreting the law in pursuit of his nefarious, misogynistic agenda.
The Honourable Justice Openshaw on the other hand, seems to be a reasonably decent judge who does not let criminals get away with it. This might be because his own father – also a judge – was stabbed to death by a criminal whom he had sentenced to borstal for theft.
However, there is something deeply troubling in the case of Theodora Dallas. The reason that she was caught was because she told other jurors what she had found about the accused and one of them reported it to an usher. But the thing is that jurors swear an oath not to disclose anything said in the jury room and jury ushers also swear oaths not to ask the jurors any question other than have they reached a verdict and not to “suffer” that anything be disclosed to them.
So in order for Miss Dallas to have been caught, at least two other people must have breached their oaths. I’m not saying that what Miss Dallas did was right. But the fact that she was sentenced to six months for a non-violent first offence while thugs walk out of the courtroom laughing, child rapists get off early and murderous husbands get off with the lesser charge of manslaughter, suggests that there is something deeply wrong with the priorities of our much vaunted judiciary.
Once again, British justice has been perverted by a criminal-friendly judge who has allowed two vicious thugs to escape custodial sentences for viciously beating up an innocent man – despite the fact that the pair of scumbags were obviously unrepentant for their vicious crime. It started when 24-year old Joseph O’Reilly (left) was walking with his girlfriend, sales adviser Lucy Blackledge (22) outside Piccadilly station in the centre of Manchester in January last year. They were heading home when they saw the three hooligans walking towards them aggressively, tipping over rubbish bins and scattering their contents in the road.
Like any decent, civic-minded citizen, Mr O’Reilly challenged their boorish behaviour by asking: “What on Earth are you doing?” But in what has now become an all-too- familiar pattern, the thugs responded by viciously attacking Mr O’Reilly.
First the cowardly, yellow-bellied, lily-livered little Mama’s Boy Thomas Lane (a 24-year-old sign writer from Stockport), feigned punches against Mr O’Reilly that he didn’t have the guts to actually throw. Then the similarly spineless Daniel Chrapkowski (24) – knowing that he had the backing of his mates – punched Mr O’Reilly in the face and then tripped him up in a well-coordinated move. (Although the attack was supposedly spontaneous, the routine was quite well-polished. These little boys knew that they were doing.)
After the thugs had brought their victim to fall to the pavement, they continued with their little-boys-playing-at-being-men routine by viciously punching and kicking Mr O’Reilly in the face and stomach before running off like the namby-pamby little squirts they really are. The thugs also included Oliver O’Neill, 23 of Bramhall, Stockport.
Mr O’Reilly sustained a broken jaw and bleeding to the brain and required a metal plate fitted into his face. He needed 40 hours of hospital treatment and had to go back into hospital several months after the attack after collapsing. Although only 24, his life has been ruined by these young thugs – who were presumably brought up by the scum of the earth. Mr O’Reilly still suffers severe dizzy spells and numbness in his mouth and can chew food on only one side of his mouth.
The experience has also affected him psychologically as he now worries about going out alone from his home in east Manchester.
But the worst was yet to come because when the crime came to court, the threesome – aided by smooth talking lawyers and the connivance of a criminal-friendly judge – were able to pervert justice by getting away with excessively lenient sentences.
Firstly the spineless Thomas Lane claimed that that he had made no physical contact with the victim. He disingenuously described his aggressive feigning of punches towards his wholly innocent victim – the event that triggered the violence – as “shadow boxing” and was allowed to plead guilty to affray rather than Grievous Bodily Harm. His lawyer, Paul Hodgkinson, said: “He accepts he had been out drinking and engaging in tomfoolery, but that mischief doesn’t cross the custody threshold.”
Now there’s a dishonest statement if ever there was one. It was not “tomfoolery” or “mischief” that Lane was engaged in, but thuggery. And his lawyer well-knows it. This is an example of the way in which lawyers use language in a conscious effort to cheat justice.
The unemployed (and unemployable?) Daniel Chrapkowski admitted causing grievous bodily harm but his lawyer Katie Jones, falsely claimed that “He is extremely remorseful and wishes to apologise to the court. It is extremely out of character.” We saw just how remorseful he was just a few minutes later when this picture was taken outside the court building.
At Manchester Crown Court, Judge Martin Steiger QC, who decided earlier in the week to pass non-custodial sentences on Chrapkowski and Lane, instead gave Chrapkowski a 12-month suspended sentence. He also ordered that he be electronically tagged for two months and complete 160 hours unpaid “community service” – which as we all know is a joke that basically means sitting around for two hours reading the newspaper.
The spineless, sissy-boy Thomas Lane was given a 12 month community order, ordered to pay £250 costs and do 120 hours community service. He also has to comply with a curfew.
23-year old Oliver O’Neill, who was on bail for another attack at the time, was jailed for 27 months after pleading guilty to two other grievous bodily harm charges.
But that’s not the end of the matter, because the two who did not get the custodial sentences that they deserved demonstrated their dishonesty, arrogance and contempt for the law outside the court as these pictures show.
The question is, did their lawyers really think their clients were remorseful. The law holds that lawyers represent their clients and act on their client’s instructions. But would such stupid people as Thomas Lane and Daniel Chrapkowski have had the brains to pretend they were remorseful in court, if some one had not put the idea in their heads? Clearly their behaviour outside the court suggest that they were not clever enough to have thought of it by themselves. So some one must have told them to pretend that they were remorseful to get lower sentences.
I wonder who.
As the headline suggests, the Kindle version of this book is now available. To buy it, just click on the link above and it will take you straigjht to Amazon where you can a copy for only 86p. Remember this book was originally published by Hodder in hardback for £17.99 and then by Coronet in paperback for £6.99. So you’re getting a real bargain here – a great thriller at an unbelievable price.
And if you still aren’t sure, you can download a sample and check out the first sixteen pages.
Branded a “rogue operative” and abandoned by his own people, Dov takes refuge in the home of the one man he can count on to help him – a Palestinian intellectual who was his professor and mentor at the School of Oriental and African Studies where he did his PhD. Though Dov and Rahman are divided by politics, Rahman is a man of immense personal loyalty and a staunch opponent of anything that will bring the Palestinian cause into disrepute (as well as being Dov’s former SCUBA diving partner).
But it becomes particularly important to help when Dov reveals the terrorists’ plan to blow up the sunken wreckage of an old World War II munitions ship packed with high explosives. And when the terrorists ambush them, Dov has to form an uneasy alliance with Salima – Rahman’s feisty and distrustful 24-year-old daughter.
Unable to convince the skeptical authorities that the attack on the ship is anything other than a desperate fabrication by Dov, their only hope is a junior police officer. But he has motives of his own. And with the net closing in on the fleeing Israeli operative, Dov and Salima find themselves caught in a race against time to stop the attack before hundreds of innocent people are killed.
I have to confess that I had reservations about Hidden Menace, because on re-reading, it does seem to stereotype Arabs somewhat. I say “stereotype” rather than “demonize” because the book does have some “good” Arabs too – i.e. those who oppose terrorism. But I still can’t escape the feeling that I have created stereotypes and effectively sold my soul to the realms of Hackdom, as it were.
This is not what I am about – normally. I like to think that I possess a modicum of literary sophistication. To this end, I try to avoid stereotypes in my characterization, just as in my use of language I avoid cliches like the plague. On the other hand, controversy sells. Look at good ol’ Jeremy Clarkson raising hell by suggesting that public sector workers who go on strike against unilateral attempts to breach the pension provisions of their contracts should be shot. A silly off-the-cuff comment that is quintessentially Jeremy Clarkson. In other words, the kind of low-brow, man-in-the-pub macho talk upon which Clarkson has built his stag-party reputation.
And guess what? All of a sudden, everyone’s talking about Jeremy Clarkson just when his star was fading. It seems that just as being outrageous can buy the untalented their proverbial 15 minutes, it can also breathe a new lease of life into the talented but erratic.
And while we’re on the subject of talented but erratic, let’s get back to talking about me! My new book may not be a literary masterpiece. As with cars that’s my other book. But it is what I would call an excellent Velvet Underground piece – in other words, a Loo Read.
And as for that cheap shot at publicity…. well here’s my contribution to the debate: Jeremy Clarkson should be shot! Now would somebody kindly report me to the Director of Public Prosecutions – PLEASE!!!!!!
- Magnetic Products Store does late winter giveaway – MPS Press Release
- The audiobook of the Wimbledon Common murder is now out
- Giveaway – 10 copies of How to write an Amazon book that SELLS
- It’s written – How to write an Amazon fiction book that SELLS
- How to write for the Amazon Kindle and CreateSpace- new book on in the works
- Cold Turkey – new gritty novel from “Dave” on
- Life imitates art as Italian woman is subjected to forcible C-section and confiscation of her baby in Essex! on
- New screenplay series invites YOU to choose the leading actors on
- New screenplay series invites YOU to choose the leading actors on
- Price reduced for Moses Legacy eBook on
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- September 2014
- August 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- February 2013
- October 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011