Monday 31 March 2008

Bill Bache Under Fire


An email filtered to me today as many do. It was from a very famous campaigning group in family law matters.

It stated as follows "A number of people have been contacting us over the last six months after being or feeling let down by Bill Bache and his office" 31 Mar 2008 08:31

The numbers seem to be building up don't they Billy Boy? Sporting the silk handkerchief in his top pocket just isn't enough anymore.

Charles Dickens viewed lawyers as being mean, cruel, and relatively heartless (Collins 175). Dickens felt that lawyers were overly concerned with power and not concerned enough about truth.For Jaggers, power is not about helping the little man for charitable purposes. Dickens seems to suggest here ideas about how power has corrupted the intentions of lawyers, people who are in a position to help those in need. Dickens also felt that, far too often, lawyers worked for their own personal gain. For lawyers of the time, manipulating the truth was very much similar to never having to put forth their own definite opinion.

In 2008 there are good lawyers in the world. Bill Bache though has been under fire from his own clients of late. His associations with the criminal mind ex convicted felon cannot be doing his reputation much good. But as he says, she can do all he can't. It also goes to show how low this lawyer will stoop to win his cases. He certainly has absolutely no problems in using the media to further his cases.


Tuesday 11 March 2008

The Henderson Bandwagon - Scientology Award Winner and Anti Child Protection Campaigner



Currently involved in campaigning
to free a guilty woman called Keran Henderson.

Maeve Sheppard died from massive head injuries, an over-extended neck (snapped), blind, bleeding of the brain and eyes, a haemorrage (all consistent with SBS), she lay in a morgue for 2 months while doctors did tests to rule out anything other than SBS [ Shaken Baby Syndrome]. In November 2007, it was ruled that Keran Henderson was guilty of manslaughter.

The above campaigner states that Keran Henderson is innocent. The media believes her.

Judgment related to the above [March 2002] can be read here.

Monday 10 March 2008

Powerfully Written by Justice4Maeve

I don't think anyone could have said it better than Justice4Maeve today.

Imagine says it all in plain English. The piece ends with the following paragraph :-

"Your child died from massive head injuries, an over-extended neck (snapped), blind, bleeding of the brain and eyes, a haemorrage (all consistent with SBS), she lay in a morgue for 2 months while doctors did tests to rule out anything other than SBS and yet I still say I am innocent.NOW WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? SHOULD I BE FREE TO GO HOME TO MY CHILDREN?"

Justice4Maeve writes out the case better than any of us [ medically trained or otherwise]

John Hemming MP and Scientific Theories

I note the Petition Title "The petition was asking for ‘a change in the process which allows wrongful convictions based solely on unscientifically proven theories’. The group met Beaconsfield MP Dominic Grieve and MP John Hemming outside Parliament before setting off to the Ministry of Justice in Victoria Street, and then on to Downing Street, to hand over the petition"

So what do they mean by "unscientifically proven theories"? Do they mean biomechanical experiments that have not been peer reviewed or proven as a theory? :). These words just fall out of good old Mr Henderson and his team's mouth without giving it a single thought. Has anyone thought what Mr Henderson and his team means by these sentences? I don't think even he knows. Of course, what they mean is theories that have not been proven :). What they have written of course is something completely ambiguous.

Not so long ago, Mr Hemming was asked about the Scientific basis of the oxygen dissociation curve. He failed to respond to this. He was then asked on the Guardian about cyanosis in children and how they survived, he failed to tell us what the scientific basis of that was. It is of course nice timing on his front for some soundbites given the Liberal Dimocrats are having a conference :).
Nicely coordinated to maximise the publicity for Panorama too :).

In truth, Mr Hemming hasn't a remote clue about paediatrics or neonatology. That is what no one knows what the petition means either.

The article soundbites also neatly stated "AN appeal against the manslaughter conviction of a childminder has been submitted to the High Court"

Wow, I wonder how many other innocent poor souls put in their appeals this week with no media coverage at all.

The Henderson Campaign - The Pink Lady Talks Back

Following on from the posting on Sheila's Wheels below :-

Of course, accuracy is important in all things in the world. The title of the PINK blog is this "Keran Henderson Shaken Baby and unsafe convictions". It does not make any mention in the title of Maeve Sheppard. Sheila currently states that the reason for the choice of colour was "Maeve" as she was a little girl. In reality, the majority of the postings on the PINK website is about a grown up called Keran Henderson who currently basks in the sunshine of the media's glare parading the fact she is apparently innocent as the driven snow. We might as well have the Keran Henderson Talk Show now. I mean we have had everything else haven't we? Are we going to have Keran Henderson mugs, teeshirts, car stickers now?

The blatant truth is this, if Sheila gave a damn about Maeve Sheppard or her family, she would not be parading the naked misconceptions of how innocent Keran Henderson is. If she had any remote amount of decency, she would stop telling us the public what we should think and she would opt to present the transcripts and the judgment on her website [ plus ALL Expert reports] so that we can all assess the truthfulness of the situation. Of course, no one will give us that information certainly not the Henderson campaign. Why should we believe Keran is innocent anyway? There isn't a remote piece of evidence that shows us she is innocent. So, the Henderson campaign is going to prove 12 experts wrong eh? [ thats multidisciplinary experts as well]. Now that is a tall order.

No person in their right mind would drag Mr and Mrs Sheppard through this media turmoil apart from Sheila herself. Where does the blame lie for the media bandwagon - it lies with the Dream Team. The Pink website and the repercussions have forced poor Mr and Mrs Sheppard to defend their case. As private people, I doubt they like the publicity bandwagon being shone on them in this way - to have their privacy invaded yet again when all they wanted to do was to get on with their lives. The Henderson Campaign's hunger for the media generated publicity to influence the appeal is an embarrassment to the campaign and their legal team. Parading the bio mechanics study as the forefront of opening other appeals - I mean, what a load of rubbish from people who don't even understand how science works. Yes, its all presented nicely for the gullible public who will believe whatever is in front of them because they don't know any better. Infact, Ofcom should look at the Panorama programme in great detail.

My advice - lets take all the blogs down, lets stop the media publicity and let the Henderson team continue their appeal/permission to appeal quietly [ through the courts] without dragging the Sheppards through this media bandwagon. Infact, it may even be an idea for me to write to the appeal judges outlining exactly what has been happening here in terms of running appeal cases through the media first before the courts.

Of course, no one will like my idea because its not good for the Henderson Campaign is it? All that money gained from the public by way of donations and we still don't have a breakdown do we. It would be a great shame if the public were blinded by a guilty woman. Mind you, even the guilty win appeals on a technicality. It is the shame that more innocent people don't get the same breaks in life.

Sunday 9 March 2008

Sheila's Wheels Falling Off the Henderson Bandwagon

There is a PINK blog supporting the Hendersons floating in cyberspace. The problem with pink plus the lack of justification for text design is the catastrophic failure at any artistry. This failure in her ability to use a simple thing like http://www.blogger.com/ properly raises questions about the content of the Sheila's Wheel's website. Can she manage anything more complex? No blogger would be seen dead in a pink template but I suspect Sheila would not know that. Then I suspect this is a Barbie world where the public is duped into thinking a guilty woman is innocent.

It sports the phrase " The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. John F. Kennedy 35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963)". It would be good if Sheila believed in the same ethos.

Of course, intelligence has nothing to do with qualifications, it has everything to do with logic, analysis and conclusions. Take http://www.maeve4justice.blogspot.com/ - intelligent, witty, analytical, has the ability to learn. Hilda creates a blog that is more successful than all Sheila's blogs over the last year. She also doesn't depend on surgeons to justify her views. Infact, she doesn't need to - because Maeve4Justice has conviction where she is able to make the audience believe in her honesty and decency. Nevertheless, I doubt anyone would take Sheila's pink blog seriously really. Well, journalists might but they are tunnel visioned anyway. It is PINK afterall.

Luckily, the Pink Lady muses about Panorama so here is what the great John Sweeney has to say :-

"That day she rang 999 and said: "I've got a baby - I can't get breaths into her. She's just taking little breaths but not much, she's like semi-unconscious at the moment"

Any mention of a FIT here or was just for the " hearing show" then?

"The majority of experts at the Henderson trial gave evidence to the effect that she must have done it. Home Office pathologist Dr Nat Cary told the jury: "There are features in this case that would suggest that there has been a great degree of force." Professor John Elston, an eye specialist, said: "I think it was most likely caused by shaking."

I believe that was 12 experts who had the FULL FACTS of the case in front of them.

As for false accusations, Sheila has made a ton of false accusations against many many doctors over the years since she was awarded the Scientology Award. I believe John Sweeney missed the obvious Scientology award that remained just underneath is nose. He is a journalist who talked about the dangers of Scientology for Panorama. Shame he hasn't spotted the dangers of Scientology on Child Protection but then he is only a journalist with no lateral vision . Then there is of course the minor issue of the Ofcom report involving John Sweeney [Today, BBC Radio 4 and Breakfast, BBC Radio Five Live, 13 January 2004]. No doubt, John Sweeney will remember it well. A reflection of his reporting ability no doubt. John has been involved in near enough most documentary pieces where he has undermined the work of child protection professionals.

The Daily Mail article though amused me. It points to an amusing biomechanics study. By the way, I have done biomechanics :) and we all know that the judgment must be made upon the case in question - on the history and clinical findings - not just biomechanics. It is a bit like the CAD CAM hip - perfect bio mechanically but in real life they always go for the tried and tested ones with long term positive studies to their name. In any case, has our man in biomechanics had his paper peer reviewed :). Did John " Ofcom" Sweeney check that then? If we really want to see foreign expert embarrassment, we have to go to a tale many years ago by man called called Jim Sprott. The BMJ UK review gave it one star. Sprott was the rage in the UK at one point then the Department of Health happened to him. The BBC stated "A new government report has dismissed any connection between cot death and a chemical found in babies' mattresses". So there we have it. Just to show that the UK does not always follow those abroad. Another example is the MMR and Autism link. No matter what studies abroad show a link, the UK scientific community does not accept it and therefore by default it will not be accepted in any court in the land. The identical principle applies to Shaken Baby Syndrome.

So its all very well quoting specialists from the world over including the Arctic but if there is no UK mainstream established backing from the Scientific Community for the theory then it ain't gonna work. Everyone is aware of the Expert Witness guidance in the UK. All research has to be sound and not a "one off". I see no specialists [ paediatricians in the UK] disputing Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Of course, this clever media run appeal may work in public by blinding them and the Daily Mail with all this science but it doesn't blind us and it won't wash with the courts. This obviously has shades of an concerted effort by a group to disprove all causes of child abuse. First the effort to undermine Munchhausen's By Proxy and now to undermine Shaken Baby Syndrome. Interesting isn't it? Soon, all the abusers will be let out into the community to do more of what they have always done. Now, I wonder where child protection stands within that equation.

As it stands, the majority of experts [12] are against Keran Henderson's case. She has no UK specialist/expert backing her "theory" at this point. Anyway 10/10 to the Henderson Campaign and Panorama for attempting to make a half baked theory stand :). Please try harder next time boys :). This is though the best I have seen of " appeal by media".

As for John Sweeney, it would be poetic justice for the Scientologists if he inadvertently assisted their agenda. John though has a temper as exhibited on Panorama sometime ago :). Slightly intemperate I would say!

Saturday 8 March 2008

Strength of Character

[ Jury Verdict - Guilty as Charged]

Iain Henderson crowed to the Buckinghamshire Advertiser. He told them " There are always nasty comments on that website which are completely needless and very often wrong. The person who is running it does not even have the strength of character to say who they are so I don't want to respond to comments they make."

Of course, Iain makes no response to all the questions asked on this blog showing the quality of his own strength of character. By the way, I have advised Justice4Maeve to keep her anonymity because we don't want those harassers involved with the Henderson campaign to make life hell for her. Justice4Maeve asks some vital questions. It is interesting that Ian Henderson does not like challenge and opts to undermine this legitimate blog that had the guts to ask the relevant questions.

While Mr Henderson speaks of "strength of character", can he tells us [ the legitimate thinkers in the public] what the breakdown of the donations is? This question has been asked repeatedly but its all been silence in the bloggers court. We can only assume that Mr Henderson feels threatened by the new challenge by Justice4Maeve, a fearless woman who started to question and go where no one dared to. I admire her anyway. If it were not for Justice4Maeve, I would not have put my thinking cap on and applied it to the spin campaign constructed by Ian Henderson. It is also excellent to see Justice4Maeve return in full force with some excellent graphics and some brilliant ideas.

So Mr Henderson [ ex police] lets see the breakdown of the donations that has been accepted from the blinded public. It would be ironic if all these people were blinded by the "narrow spectrum" information you place on your website. Lets see the wider spectrum evidence, lets see all the expert reports, the court transcripts and the actual judgment. Of course, none of us like being told what we should believe. Let us all judge for ourself.

Of course, Panorama is around on Monday. Yet another "innocent even when proven guilty" media spin no doubt. I am though interested in Mr Sheppard's narrative.

Thursday 6 March 2008

NOTHING BUT THE HALF TRUTH

In the litigation arena permission to appeal/appeal cannot be obtained by publicity alone. Publicity though can influence-which is essentially our argument here. That would be the only reason to use publicity in the Henderson case - to act to influence. The Henderson campaign trial knows how to use its publicity. Money is one objective ie harvesting donations. The other objective is to influence - influencing the public, influencing the courts and blinding everyone with fragments of the truth. That is what the Henderson campaign offers us. It believes the public are unintelligent. It therefore feeds that public, half truths. If said enough, it becomes the fictional truth. The kind of truth that makes people reach deep into their pockets to donate. Of course, to my mind there are a million causes to donate to in the world.

At no time has the audience and the public been presented with ALL the court documentation so that we [ the public] can make up our minds. Of course, much like Labour Party spin, we aren't allowed to assess the evidence for ourselves. We have to be told what to believe and what is right. The Henderson campaign team does not present the medical expert reports for the prosecution on their website and infact we have no court documents at all. To date, no one has placed the entire transcripts online nor any court documentation. Do we conclude that the Henderson campaign trail have something to conceal?

We can though see that the majority of permissions/appeals to fail. The Henderson campaign trail will already have first hand evidence of this. There is nothing like a failed attempt to provide full proof appeal advice. Failure instills confidence in the public? Afterall, England always congratulates the loser and not the winner.

Anyway, we shall move onto other matters relating to appeals itself. This research was commissioned to inform the Committee about factors affecting the success of appeals against conviction. Crime and Criminal Justice Research Findings No. 12 (1996) applies to the Scottish Courts but is nevertheless interesting. "The Sutherland Committee on Appeals Criteria and Alleged Miscarriages of Justice was set up in 1994 by the then Secretary of State for Scotland to examine the criteria governing the consideration of criminal appeals against conviction and the procedures for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice. This research was commissioned to inform the Committee about factors affecting the success of appeals against conviction and was carried out during 1995 by analysis of appeal records held by Crown Office and the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), as well as through discussions with lawyers involved in criminal appeals. Factors affecting appeals against sentence were not considered. Some of the main findings are summarised below".
The findings are listed below

Most appeals (65%) were abandoned before the Appeal Court passed judgement on their merits; of the remainder 25% were refused and 10% were allowed.


Most abandonments (85%) took place before the first Appeal Court hearing: 48% were abandoned through a Notice or Minute of Abandonment; 27% through failure (whether intentional or not) to comply with various procedural deadlines; and a further 10% were deemed abandoned owing to the appellant's failure to appear at the first hearing. The remaining 15% of abandonments occurred at or sometime after the first appeal court hearing.


Defence agents thought that several factors influenced the abandonment of appeals. Some were related to the quality of the appeal and were often interlinked (these were: a realisation by the appellant that the initial impulse to appeal was misconceived; an unhelpful stated case or charge to the jury; an unfavourable counsel opinion; and, closely related to the latter two factors, a refusal of legal aid.) Other factors not related to the quality of the appeal but which were thought to lead to abandonment were the refusal of interim liberation and a perceived greater propensity to appeal, regardless of the strength of the case, by people sentenced to custody.


The success rate for appeals ranged from 5% of all appeals lodged against decisions of the High Court to 15% of appeals lodged from district courts. In between were appeals from sheriff court solemn (11% allowed) and sheriff court summary procedures (10% allowed).


Around half of the appeals were based on multiple grounds and a total of 30 different grounds were identified. Many of these were used only occasionally but there was an extremely high use of a small number of grounds, with the five most popular accounting for 68% of all grounds cited. Most of these grounds raised questions about the quality of the evidence rather than being based upon technical points of procedure.


Although the more frequently cited grounds of appeal tended to have higher abandonment rates, they did not generally appear to have different success rates.


Applications for Legal Aid were more likely to be granted for appeals against decisions of the higher courts which reflects the fact that these were the most serious cases. Where legal aid was refused, the appeal was abandoned in three quarters of cases; where legal aid was granted, however, abandonments occurred in less than one-third of cases.

The refusal of interim liberation did not affect the rate of abandonment although it made an early abandonment more likely

To summarise the grounds of appeal more succinctly than the clear ramblings on a neighbouring website

1.misdirection of law;

2.non-direction on the law;

3,failure to refer to a defence;

4. misdirection on the facts;

5.inappropriate comment by the judge;

6. wrongful admission or exclusion of the evidence;

7. defects in the indictment;

8. rejection of no case to answer;

9. jury irregularities;

10. irregularity in relation to verdict;

11. prosecution responsibilities such as non-disclosure or late change in nature of the case.

Now this would be a much better aide memoire for the public.

As for the Sally Clark's case, it was run by the PR machine Quiller Consultants. Of course, it was a media spin machine. Of course, it got her the public sympathy vote. Of course,millions of women cried for her. I have the actual transcripts of the original trial though and its amazing what we find out about Mr Stephen Clark. You see much, like the Henderson case, if we dissect the factual evidence within the trial and the actual evidence, we come to a rather different conclusion. That is of course a matter for another day. One thing is for certain, Quillers controlled what the public heared and what the public read. Of course, much like the Henderson spin machine, only the partial truth is in the public domain. We are interested in facts. That is of course a matter for another sunny day.

Related Links



Criminal appeal office - Advice for Relatives

Wednesday 5 March 2008

£3000 plus the "Innocent" Card

Keran's message can be read here. Her community supports her.

Then we all have to remember that Harold Shipman's patients supported him as well. Do criminals often admit to guilt? Well, I suppose they sometimes do. If Keran was guilty, would she admit to it or would she do everything in her power to save face? That is of course the real question. I have often thought that loners who have nothing to save of their reputation often admit to their crimes but those who are a part of a community always maintain their innocence. Keran comes in the second set of people.

A recent newspaper stated as follows "The petition, which calls for "a change in the process which allows wrongful convictions based solely on unscientifically proven theories", was signed by 350 adults". The problem though is that Keran's conviction was on scientific analysis as asssessed by the jury.

My question is this, would a woman with so much in the way of reputation to lose in her community admit to her guilt? I would say probably not. I don't see a lady like Keran who was a main player in the local community admitting to much at all. Then of course there are her children who understandably will believe their mother is innocent. On a balance sheet, this case has more to gain by the "innocent" card. Of course, there is a very remote possibility that Keran could be innocent.

The Henderson campaign is doing well donations wise. We are yet to see any breakdown of the finances. While the Henderson campaign insists that the legal team are working probono, Mr Henderson writes as follows " [Donations page on his wesbite] Your generosity will enable the Committee to assist in the financing of an appeal, and in meeting the direct and indirect costs which are being incurred in supporting Keran and her family during her period of imprisonment. By donating to the fund you are expressing your willingness to right a terrible wrong through the activities of the Committee expending those funds on your behalf".

So there we are, the public is indeed funding Bill Bache's silk handkerchiefs. £3000 plus by now should be funding a few hours of lawyer time. I believe though that there are tons of miscarriages of justice. Personally, I believe funds should be shared between all the families. Afterall, it wouldn't be fair to keep the entire pot of money just incase Keran was actually guilty.

Related Link

Tuesday 4 March 2008

Public Funds

"A website has been set up and a campaign fund started, which, on the first day was sent £3,000 by anonymous donors" Daily Mail [ on the Henderson Campaign Trail].

And more recently the Henderson Campaign stated

"So for clarification, every bit of work being undertaken by the legal team in Henderson is being done pro bono"

So can we have a breakdown of exactly how much campaign funds where raised and what happened to donated money?

I postulate as follows in terms of the pro bono work :-

1. Media stories [ Spinmeister time]
2. Soundbites [ Creator time]
3. Getting further clients on the back of publicity [ Fame]

My question is - have the team got any decent experts to back Henderson or is everyone going to ride on her fame. Thats if she is innocent of course. Perhaps the team is going to play the technicality card and the media card. A winning combination no doubt. By the way, can we get that juror a paediatric textbook from Amazon so she can do some bedtime reading. Much like John Hemming MP she feels unable to read a textbook.

Related Link


No such thing as a free lunch.

Sunday 2 March 2008

The Minority Report

In an account in the Daily Mail by Mr Henderson, he writes as follows :-

"One, neuropathologist Dr Waney Squier, suggested Maeve's injuries could have been months old. But that did not suit the prosecution, so the next day they brought someone in to say the injuries must have been more recent. "

Dr Waney Squier works at the John Radcliffe Hospital Oxford. By Mr Henderson's own admission she was the only expert [ out of the possible 12] that had a differing view. She was also the only expert witness that went public .

She then told the Daily Mail ""What I cannot say is whether those injuries were accidental or inflicted. But it's incredibly unlikely it was shaken-baby syndrome. There is absolutely nothing to indicate she was shaken".

So, the words "incredibly unlikely" does not fit with " There is absolutely nothing to indicate she was shaken". "Incredibly unlikely" gives us the idea that there was a possibility no matter how remote. So Waney is seen to contradict herself here. Even worse she states " What I cannot say is whether those injuries were accidental or inflicted". So basically Waney cannot tell us what happened at all. In any event each sentence of hers conflicts with everything else she states in the papers.

In any case, by Iain Henderson's own admission, the jury were already aware of Dr Waney Squire's view when they made their judgment. It is nothing new. The media spin on this is rather interesting. No media outlet tells us how many experts actually supported the prosecution. At the last count there were 12 experts [ I could be wrong].


What is interesting is this, Dr Waney Squier works in the same hospital where Maeve Sheppard had been admitted. The Express pointed out "Maeve was taken to Wexham Park Hospital, then transferred to intensive care at John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford". Waney Squier's witness evidence can hardly be said to be completely "independent". I believe others who have done this sort of thing in the past have been accused of a breach of confidentiality by the scientology award winner. Waney though hasn't been accused of this at all showing that the accusations by the Henderson camp supporter is normally made just for convenience. Dr John Chapman who wrote in the BMJ (2005) about a case already in the public domain. He stated "I posted a response yesterday. I did not include my email address deliberately. This morning I have received an email from PM who is reporting me to the GMC and the Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health for a perceived breach of patient confidentiality. Beware" .
Of course, I often think that it is a very brave expert witness to go public on a case she has been involved with. This has the net effect of distressing Maeve's parents [ who feel compelled to defend themselves] and influences the forthcoming appeal of Mrs Henderson.

The Henderson case supporter and Scientology award winner then wrote " Finally unless you have obtained permission from the family to give details of the case in which you were an attending doctor, I do believe that you have breached patient confidentiality by leading the reader of your response to the article in which the child's name appears" (2005). Of course, Waney was one of the first doctors to review the brain of this child because it was the hospital where she was treated.

Dr Squier, from the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, said: "I spend all my life reading papers and studying my field of expertise". It is therefore interesting that she ignores the views of all clinicians in the case completely. Well, she considers herself as a neuropathologist to be the only expert that counts, the rest of the experts are now apparently irrelevant according to her. That is what she and the Henderson camp would like to think anyway. In reality, a conclusion is reached by the view from all specialities. This is called a Panoramic view. Taking her view out of context is simply taking one jigsaw out of a entire picture and coming to a conclusion.

The Daily Mail said of the other experts

"One of them, respected consultant neuroradiologist Dr Neil Stoodley, insisted that scans taken at the hospital showed bleeding in the brain of baby Maeve which was a "marker of a shaking injury. Others said that the little girl had haemorrhages behind both eyes and that her brain had swollen which proved an attack"

In conclusion, it seems the majority view supports the prosecution case. What we are given by the media is a Minority View. In truth, the jury were already aware of Waney Squier's view and summarily rejected it. What we have is a cleverly constructed media spin meister overinflating the importance of the minority opinions.


What is even more interesting is this "A website has been set up and a campaign fund started, which, on the first day was sent £3,000 by anonymous donors". Not bad money for overinflating a minority view and essentially blinding the public. I assume that money has been given to Maeve's parents. At least that is the right thing to do. Either that or Bill Bache has informed the legal aid people of their new found fortune.

Until next time.....

Saturday 1 March 2008

Panoramic Juror Theory

There are all sorts of advantages to Scientology. The main ethos of Scientology is all about gaining power and influence. Jury tampering isn't new in the world of Scientology. It is though interesting. No doubt in response to this statement, there will be frantic tapping on keyboards in an attempt to discredit me. That's fine, that's what Scientologists do.

In life there are a few types of coincidences and the rest happens due to the laws of physics. The key is to look at the facts of the case and derive some conclusions. We shall of course look at the juror phenomena.

On the 17th December 2007 the Jurors went public.in the Henderson case. On the same day Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:09 pm, a Scientologist award winner writes the following on the http://www.msbp.com/ "Always been my point with these types of cases, other jurors whom I am in contact from other high profile trials say the same thing". Now our question is this, why would the Scientologist award winner wish to know so many jurors. And exactly how many jurors have been influenced? Immediately, the Scientologist Award winner's associate a Mr John Hemming writes a comment on the West Midlands Liberal Democrat website. It is almost as if they were all waiting on the wings for the story to break then immediately [ as we know this is impossible for any MP] had a comment all ready and waiting. I just love the timing of the juror as featured in the media. And shock horror, even the Expert Witness [ one of 12] dresses up for the media. This was just a few days later.

I note that no juror or expert spoke out until the involvement of the John Hemming MP/Bill Bache Team. Isn't that interesting. On the 23rd of December 2007 a few days after the jurors did their soundbites, then came the Times article. The Times article stated " An appeal is being mounted with the help of Bill Bache, the solicitor who organised Angela Cannings’s appeal". We calculate that he must have had the papers for a while. Was Keran Henderson cherry picked for her command of being a "high profile case"? Indeed, why don't we see any other lawyers running the media bandwagon prior to an appeal.

Of course, it would be Bill Bache the man who told everyone that " A certain person did for them what he could never do". You mean like " talk to the newspapers and give them soundbites" that Bill Bache cannot do directly? So if anyone asks Bill, he can truthfully say he was never involved in doing what Alasdair Campbell used to do. Is that what he means? Who does he hand the spinmeister reigns to then? Well, we can think of one person who has always done it.

I always compare the fancy footwork of Bill Bache to a good Tango. He may look like a baffoon and carry a silk handkerchief in his top pocket but we know all about Bill. It isn't just circumstance that the media articles have come in tandem much like a well rehearsed pattern. The media are of course dumb enough to play ball with them all. Its all about selling papers and everyone loves a good sob story.

As I said before, Bill Bache spends his life defending clients. Lawyers say black is white and white is black because it is their profession. Anyway, this is just the start of a interesting tale of intrigue.

This kind of tango can be seen many times over, much like a broken record in each case that revolves around child protection issues. The same team, the same media drive, the attacks on anyone who attempts an opposing argument etc. The overall net result is to damage child protection. Opposing arguments means that person has to be broken down, discredited, taken out of the equation.

This isn't about the truth, it is about bending the truth and it is also about money. Money afterall makes the world go round. Any desperate victim would be happy to take any alms that is offered to them. It is a bit like the film The Picture of Dorian Grey. He sold his soul for his youth. What would any of us do to get out of prison?

Anyway, I shall keep eating my popcorn and watch this case with intrigue. It is all about panoramic views afterall.

Jurors Official Story - The Times

Is it right for two jurors to speak out in a case pending appeal? 2 Jurors spoke out but the others' didn't. The case contained a majority verdict.

"In an unprecedented move, two jurors recently spoke out to condemn the conviction of Keran Henderson, a childminder, for the manslaughter of 11-month-old Maeve Sheppard while in her care. Their comments, revealed by The Times, were made anonymously. Now, in an exclusive article, the foreman, a lecturer living in Berkshire, questions the practical workings of the jury system"

Read the story here.

An interesting debate on the impartiality of the jury system is raised in the Times article here.

The Keran Henderson campaign trail were obviously happy that the minority of the jurors gave them some hope. We could twist this round and state that the line of hope is the publicity which may even influence the appeal judges. Afterall, all judges read the Times don't they? In the BBC article the juror stated "I will never know as long as I live whether the verdict was right or not because I haven't, we haven't, got all this medical expertise".


Does this mean that the Lord Chancellor should review every jury that has sat on every criminal trial containing medical evidence? Lets face it, every criminal trial has some form of medical evidence. Of course, there are juries who actually go away and read up and there are those who simply sit there and plead naivety. If that is so, this juror should write to the Lord Chancellor and tell him to retry all criminal cases based on the fact that no one understands anything about medicine and they are all incapable of using the Internet or lifting a textbook after the trial. So instead of making these admissions during the trial and asking for more information from the judge/counsels they make their admission of intellectual inferiority after the fact. They could have sought clarification at the hearing itself. They opted not to do so. Nothing is a coincidence of course. I suspect simply telling the CPS by letter or verbally was out of the question was it? No, what they felt compelled to do was advertise it to the entire media.


The Henderson campaign trail has not to date denied a connection with the jurors. There may be no merit in this speculation but nevertheless it has never been excluded.


This has the net effect of influencing the appeal in the Henderson case. I suppose when you have nothing by way of factual evidence then you have to rely on other alternatives such as blinding the public.