Thread by @JEMilneSky

At Newcastle Crown Court today for the trial of Carl Beech. Cross examination expected to begin later today. Last week the court heard Beech describe the abuse he alleges he suffered at the hands of a VIP paedophile ring and he admitted to lying about having child abuse images.

Carl Beech takes to the witness box sporting the same outfit as last week - dark blue jumper, beige trousers and black trainers.

Collingwood Thompson QC for the defence opens, having deliberated over the weekend, there are two outstanding matters.

18/19 July 2017 7 interviews with the police over those two days. Beech made “no comment” in these interviews, he says he was advised to do so by his legal representative.

At the time Beech was told Operation Midland was terminated, he says his notebooks we in his bedroom and they remained there until he eventually burnt them in May 2016, he says he burnt them because he didn’t want them lying around, they ha a lot of bad memories in.

He says his counsellor Vicky suggested burning them. He adds they were never in the Big Yellow Storage locker.

Tony Badenoch QC for the prosecution stands to begin cross examination. Taking Beech back to 2012, summarising Beech’s employment history.

Within his training and work Badenoch QC says Beech would have experience a lot, learning that documentation is very important in the health sector and that it needs to be accurate, accuracy is paramount - Beech agrees.

Failings in accuracy in the worst cases can lead to fatality, says Badenoch QC, in 2012 Beech was still working in the healthcare sector for the CQC, living in Gloucester.

In 2012 Beech went to the police, made a complaint of sexual assault to police officers, were referred to DS Lewis, Beech confirms. Met with his 6 Nov 2012. Met with him for the purposes of learning what was involved in making a complaint of this kind.

DS Lewis explained the processes, the value of potential lines of enquiry, that they were looking to investigate the matter. Beech understood all this when he was in the police station, he confirms, no names were given at this time.

25 Nov, met again, no names other than Beech’s step-father and Jimmy Savile given at this time. DS Lewis noted Beech was “particularly nervous” at this time. 6 Dec 2012 appointment made to speak to the police to give an account of what happened.

6 Dec 2012, Beech knew the police wanted to conduct an investigation and that it would be important to give the police all the information. But he chose not to, Beech confirms.

Beech says that was not in his mindset when he was driving to see the detective. He says he didn’t want to give much information, but f he told them about his step father they would find out the rest themselves.

Beech says he thought they would be able to find it out themselves. He admits he couldn’t bring himself to give them all the information at that time. He confirms he had a “wealth of information he decided to withhold from police officers”.

When asked if it was on purpose, he says not quite on purpose but that he couldn’t bring himself to tell them at that time. Judge Justice Goss QC intervening to clarify, to had a choice to tell them or not, which did you do?

Court now looking at the transcript of the interview with DS Lewis December 2012.

“It should be as accurate as you can and also as truthful as you can, because clearly if there is a court case comes out of it, your evidence with be key” said DS Lewis. Beech confirms he would have understood that at the time.

He says it wasn’t as straight forward for him in his position at the time. Adding there was some information “I just couldn’t release to them”. Badenoch adding, you decided to keep from him, Beech says yes.

There is no mention of any politician in this interview, no mentioned of any named person in the army at any point in this interview. No mention of anyone in the intelligence services, nor of the wildlife park, nor the injuries he sustained.

Beech confirms there is no mention of any investigative line the police could follow to find John. Beech says he didn’t know all the names of the politicians, he did know about the injuries, the wildlife park, John and the intelligence services.

Beech says he doesn’t believe the information he gave pointed the police in the wrong direction. He admits John was the corroborative witness. He says nothing in his interview, other than suggesting John existed by using another name.

Beech did not tell the police officer that he was using an alternative name for John, he admits he gave the police officer a “false name”, he admits sending the police officer off in the wrong direction.

Beech says he found this very difficult because he was out under pressure to meet someone he didn’t want to. Badenoch suggests in the interview it looks like it “trips off his tongue”. Beech disagrees.

Beech says the struggle was being put in an awkward position in that he didn’t want to release John’s name and hat Aubrey was he first name that came into his head to use instead. He admits Aubrey was completely false in connection with this.

Beech agrees using the name Aubrey was a lie to the police. This is the first example of Beech telling an important lie to the police, Beech agrees.

Beech agrees he was given the opportunity to tell DS Lewis the names of those who abused him. In the interview Beech says his step father would take him out of school, for what reason he doesn’t know. Beech admits now he did know the name of the man and the base.

Beech agrees he told an untruth to the police with reference to the name of the base and the man. He accepts that is a lie to the detective.

In the interview in Dec 2012 Beech said he did not know the name of the man in the military he was being introduced to. But in this courtroom he has told the jury he did know the identity of the man. He says he didn’t feel like he could tell the detective.

Beech says he was put under pressure to do a drawing in front of the officers of the office where he was taken. He says he didn’t want to give the information.

“I don’t know names” Beech told DS Lewis in 2012. Beech says he didn’t know everyone’s name. But at that time he knew the details he subsequently gave to the Met police.

He knew General Beach, General Gibbs, General Bramal, Peter Hayman, Harvey Proctor, Leon Brittan, Edward (Heath), Michael (Hanley), Maurice (Oldfield). He elected not to tell the police these names. He agrees it was information he chose not to give them.

Beech agrees he was intentionally giving the detective different information from the truth. He agrees he intentionally misled a police officer.

In the interview he speaks about being held under the water and being unable to breathe. He says this happened throughout his childhood and that multiple did it. He says he couldn’t give Badenoch QC an exact number but admits it was more than 5, probably not more than 10.

Beech says it has left him with problems that stretch into his adult life. He says other than the fact he can’t tolerate water going up his nose. Swimming without a mask wouldn’t be something he could do.

In the interview Beech describes the Wilton house as being “bare”. He says this house was similar to the one he lived in at the time, this was not the Imber address. He says he doesn’t know exactly here it was in Wilton.

“I don’t think anyone spoke and he told me to take off my clothes”. His father was “he”, the other men was Bramal, Gibbs and Beach. Beech says it’s right he knew their names but did not tell the police.

Beech again says at the time he misinformed the officer because they were pressing him on the ranks of the men in the army but this was information he didn’t want to give.

In the interview in 2012 he describes the sexual abuse he suffered, including the incident at the house where he “never experienced pain like this before”, but Badenoch QC says Beech said he was raped at the Wildlife park before this, so he has experienced pain like this before.

Beech agrees he was raped before this time. He agrees his statement to the detective about “never feeling pain like this before” was a lie. He says he was still trying to process this himself.

Beech says he left out the wildlife parks because he found it too difficult to say. Beech says this incident (at the house) did happen, so not a lie.

He admits it was not a true representation he gave to the police officer because he had felt that pain before but he didn’t want to tell the officers at the time. He says it wasn’t a conscious act by him, it wasn’t something he could bring himself to do.

Beech says the pain was unbelievable, as it was the first time. Asked if he ejaculated, Beech in the interview says yes, I didn’t know what it was at the time. Asked if he was injured, he said yes and describes there being lots of blood.

Beech says he was trying to explain what happened after the incident. He explains there was blood, as there was the first time.

Beech says at the time he doesn’t know if he would describe himself as being injured. Badenoch says Beech had been a medical professional for 25 years, where accuracy is everything. So why did Beech say he didn’t know if he was injured or not? Beech says because he was a child.

Beech says it was different every time, different places - in 2012 interview - Beech admits he did know the general areas of the bases where he was taken, not the name of them. Beech explains this was information he wasn’t happy to give.

Beech agrees he was giving information they couldn’t follow up and was giving misleading information. Beech says he thought the police could do their own follow up, adding he withheld all the mention of Dolphin Square and the Carlton Club because he wasn’t ready to share it.

“The group knew everything” Beech said in his interview in 2012, this was his opportunity to give names but he decided not to. No mention of London, no murders, no wildlife park - Beech says no to all of these.

Beech says he couldn’t comprehend what had happened to him himself, let alone tell the police. In the 2012 interview Beech said to DS Lewis in response to names of the group “Definitive names?”Beech says he doesn’t recall why he answered that, could have been to give himself time

Beech says it wasn’t to decide what lie to give next, that’s not how my mind was working at the time. “Two then, I think, I don’t know the other” - Beech agrees this was a positive statement of untruth.

Beech told the jury that Harvey Proctor and Edward Heath was very open about using their names but told DS Lewis that names were never used, explaining that they didn’t - in that context.

Beech agrees there was no hesitation in revealing Jimmy Savile’s name. He agrees he told the detective he had been raped by Jimmy Savile and never seen his face. Beech says he was “raped more than once but not lots of times” by Savile.

In the interview in 2012 Beech said it was just Savile’s voice that identified him. Adding he never saw his face. Beech agrees Jimmy Savile is an easily identified individual and that he watched Jim’ll Fix It. Beech cannot recall seeing his face.

Beech says he was comfortable telling DS Lewis about Jimmy Savile and no other name because he had already spoken to the NSPCC about Savile and Operation Yewtree.

Court is now being shown a document found on Beech’s USB stick about claiming compensation from the Criminal Injuries Claims. In order to claim money an individual has to have reported to the police. Beech says he doesn’t recall this particular document.

He adds he would have been more interesting in the part that deals with claiming for help and ways of dealing with what had happened, rather than the money.

Returning to the interview in 2012 Beech was asked are there any names you know (of the group) or have come across since that you can identify? Beech agrees its a straightforward question. He said”not names specifically” Beech admits now he did know names.

Beech says he was not ready to reveal that information to them. He agrees he was misleading the police. In the interview he proceeds to give information about a “Middle Eastern person” Beech says his name is “Abdullah” but he doesn’t recall his long name.

Beech at the time said he had a funny nose, was very fit, with black hair very short. And that this man didn’t have a code name.

Beech now doesn’t know why he felt he had to explain to the detective that “Abdullah” didn’t have a code name. Beech disagrees he did this to give credence to a completely false story.

Beech agrees this is a lie. That throughout the abuse in his childhood there were no code names used. He agrees we don’t find that in the interviews with the Met. He agrees this is an unnecessary detail. But he doesn’t know why he said that.

Beech disagrees he did this to manipulate a police officer “not that I was aware of”.

In the interview Beech explained the abuse stopped when he was 15, leading up to his 16th birthday. Beech says he suffered abuse between the ages of 8 to 16. Adding he has memories of abuse happening before then “but that’s not something fixed in my recollections”.

Beech says the abuse stopped - the gang didn’t turn up - around his 16th birthday. He doesn’t remember turning 16. He says he knows the abuse stopped around this time.

This means the abuse would have stopped in 1984, the only way to communicate with others who were not next to you was writing a letter or using a landline telephone.

When asked about his childhood friend “John” Beech says he did not go to the same school, he lived close to him in Wilton and at time in Kingston. He was not at school with him at any time in his childhood.

Beech says he remained in contact with John when he was 16 by writing letters on an occasion basis.

Beech estimates he wrote to John maybe once or twice a year. He says he was around 20/21 years old when he stopped writing to John, when he got his first mobile phone in 1989. Beech describes the huge Motorola phone he had at the time. John also had a mobile.

Beech says he’s not sure at this stage, 1989, where John was living. He can’t remember how old John was when he emigrated. He can’t estimate in his 20s, 30s or 40s. Beech maintains he does exist.

In 2012 Beech was asked to describe members of the group. He said “a lot of them just blur into one, I don’t know which bit goes into which.”

Beech says the ones he didn’t know the names of do blur into one. He says for those he did know the name of he wasn’t prepared to share their names.

In the 2012 interview, Beech positively asserts he does not know the names of the individuals. Beech agrees this was an opportunity to say he knew some names. But he said he tried to ask his mum a few questions. Beech says he wasn’t asking her about who people were.

Beech says he didn’t tell Vicky Paterson any untruths “not that I’m aware of, no”.

Beech says he was not keen on the police speaking with his mother. Beech agrees his mother had been present throughout his childhood. Accepts he lived a lone with his mother in Kingston for many years.

Beech says his mother had different jobs through his childhood, in Bicester she moved into management, he thinks. Management in the health service whilst Beech was a boy. He agrees she was a qualified nurse and that she was working in nursing while he was a boy, at times.

Court breaks for 10 minutes.

Returning to the interview with DS Lewis December 2012. Badenoch QC runs through the transcript, Beech said he never suffered abuse during the school holidays when they lived in Bicester. In term time members of the group abused him. John was at some of these incidents says Beech

Beech says it impossible to give a figure as to the number of times John was also there. Beech then details the rules from the group - “no crying, no hesitation and they didn’t like it when I passed out”. Beech in the interview did not remember why he would pass out.

Badenoch QC says at this time you were a medical professional for 25 years and that later Beech said he almost died and was hospitalised for two weeks. Beech says this was not in relation to himself. This was in relation to someone else.

Court are now being shown a document Beech says is part of the “Too Many Secrets” document he wrote. The document is written in the first person. Beech says some of this particular incident is in connection with John, he adds John is in hospital. 2 Aug 2012 doc last modified.

6 Dec 2012 Beech put this document on his USB, the same day of he interview. In the document the narrator says he is in hospital and becomes aware of nosies around him, he tries to move but can’t then he remembers a sexually abusive incident. Beech agrees he wrote this.

Beech says this episode - in hospital - is John, not him. He says the whole document is about both Beech and John.

Badenoch QC invites both Beech and members of the jury to read the two pages of the document.

Beech confirms he wrote this document in 2012. He confirms he was writing about this before the interview with Wiltshire police. He confirms he did not mention this incident to Wiltshire police. This document is written in the first person. Beech says it wasn’t all about him.

Beech says he wrote it it record memories and to put it in some sort of context and to help with timelines and time scales.

Beech says this incident concerns John. He explains it is written in the first person because it enabled him to detach himself from it and write about things he didn’t feel like he could speak about.

Beech says writing things down enables him to put things in context. Beech says it could be that by writing it in the first person it looks like it was written about him. He says this is a personal document. He says he might have used it as a blog.

Beech says a reader or a blog written in the first person might think the blog was about the person who wrote it.

Beech says he told Vicky Paterson he assumed he had broken ribs and that he had a broken arm and repeated bruises and abrasions - all of which are mentioned in the document. But Beech says these are or about him.

*Are not about him.

Badenoch QC asks Beech what John’s name is. Beech says he does not have his permission to share that information but that he does know his name. Beech says he has not asked John his permission to give his full name. He says it’s up to John to do that.

“Aubrey” appears in the document but Beech does not know if Aubrey referred to himself or John.

Beech says John had a bleed on the head and that he almost died. Beech says John told him at the time he almost died.

When asked about the plaster cast on his arm, Beech says this was about John - not him.

Aubrey once again in the document, running over to the narrator asking where he’d been. Beech says he doesn’t know why he was using “Aubrey” in this context. He agrees this is him writing in the first person writing about John. Beech says Aubrey has no knowledge of this.

Beech says he doesn’t know what the thought process is behind writing it this way. Beech says the reader of this would have been him. Beech does not know why he would have written Aubrey into this.

Beech confirms Aubrey wasn’t there for the incident. Beech says he does not recall why he would have pout Aubrey’s name there. Beech says Aubrey has no knowledge of the incident and that he has nothing to do with the incident.

In this document the narrator says he told Aubrey about the wildlife park and what happened with his father. Aubrey is said to have replied that his father did the same. Beech says this is in relation to John and him, not Aubrey.

Beech says this is written in the first person because it helps him “get things down”. Beech agrees the mention of Aubrey in here is “wrong and completely false”. Beech says this is only a document for him. Beech says he doesn’t know why Aubrey’s name is there.

Beech admits the document is written in the first person about somebody else and is incorrect - in relation to how long John suffered abuse.

“It was part of my daily life, sometimes he would want me, sometimes he would leave me alone” - when asked who the “me” is, Beech says it could be either me or John.

Aubrey is a complete falsehood in that he is introduced in this, says Badenoch QC. Beech says yes, his name should not appear here - in an account of “me” and “Aubrey” being shared around the group.

Beech says he doesn’t know why he interchanges between “John” and “Aubrey” when recounting the same event. He says this is not to spread falsehoods because this document was for his private use.

The document mentions Sophie, Beech’s dog. Beech confirms this part of the document is about him. Beech confirms Sophie was his rock and that he went on holidays.

Beech says he remembers going on holiday in this country with his grandparents but has been told he went on holidays abroad. In the same sentence of the document the narrator mentions “5 traumatic years of abuse”.

Beech cannot recall why he wrote that. Beech says he was abused for 8 years. He cannot recall why he said 5 years. He says the last third of this sentence is incorrect. He denies “making it up as he goes along”.

Beech says he doesn’t recall why he used “Aubrey” in this document. Badenoch QC moves to ask about Beech discussions passing out, asking why hadn’t Beech said he passed out because he was held under the water - Beech says somethings are too difficult to speak about.

Beech says he was withholding information from the police officer because it was too difficult to say.

In the interview in 2012 Beech told DS Lewis about the group stabbing things in his feet, when asked what was used he said I don’t know. Now Beech expand he said I don’t know because he didn’t specifically know. He says he gave an indication of what it might have been.

Beech said he didn’t know what part of his foot they stabbed. Beech says “all under my foot”. By this time Beech had spoken to Vicky Paterson, he doesn’t recall if he had mentioned it to her by now. Beech says he doesn’t know why he didn’t mention the drawing pins.

Beech says Michael Hanley found him in Kingston and showed him pictures of prior abuse. In the interview in 2012 Beech did not give the officer a name. Beech admits he intentionally withheld the name.

Onto page 21 of 29 of the interview with Wiltshire police Dec 2012. Beech said most of the 20 men in the group put their “penis in my anus”. Beech admits he knew most of the names of the men but did not tell DS Lewis.

Beech told DS Lewis about “an American” who could have a Canadian accent. Beech says his name was John Louis. But at the time he did not want to tell the police officer a name. He admits he was intentionally misleading a police officer by mentioning the Canadian accent.

Beech does not know why he mentioned the Canadian accent and had forgotten he had done that until he saw the transcript. He says “I wasn’t in the right place, I shouldn’t have done it”.

Beech says he was “repeatedly knowingly giving false information” because “I didn’t want to give he details and specifics of what happened to me at that time”.

Beech admits he does send the detective off to search for Aubrey, knowing that Aubrey is nothing to do with this investigation. Beech admits yes, he did send the detective off in the wrong direction, adding it wasn’t something that was a deliberate act on my part.

Beech says he was being pressed into giving names. He says he was at the police station voluntarily.

The Hilton in Park Lane, suggests Badenoch QC, has some bad memories for Beech - Beech says this is where Michael was, possibly Maurice and the Middle Eastern man. Beech says yes, some bad memories but not as bad as the others. He confirms he was raped there.

He says he did not avoid that area of London. He went back there repeatedly. He says the first time he went back since he would have found it difficult but that it wasn’t something he found difficult later on.

Beech confirms he went to America in the summer of 2012. He says he drove a Ford Mustang, convertible, he can’t recall the colour. He says he went to the USA for two weeks with his son. Continuing in the interview Beech says “I love watching the news”.

Beech says he hasn’t spoken to his mother since September (2012). At this stage in the interview DS Lewis asks about how many incidents there were other children there. Beech answers, just one. In court Beech says that answer is right in “some situations”.

DS Lewis wanted to know who else might have been in these situations, Beech says he knew who was there. In the interview in 2012 Beech said there was another friend from Bicester, he says he was referring to a John but wasn’t prepared to give his name.

Beech says he knew where John lived but not the exact street. In the interview he said he did not know John’s second name. Beech day in court today, that is not true.

Beech confirms these are lies to the detective - because he was not prepared to give this information.

Beech says he used “Aubrey” to replace John’s name. He said he didn’t even think about telling the detective he was going to use a different name, he didn’t think he could.

He adds he did tell the Met that he was using a different name for John. But not for Wiltshire police.

Beech says he “did not want to give accurate information”. Judge Justice Goss QC intervene asking, are you giving the details about Aubrey or John? Beech say he is talking about John but it would have applied to Aubrey too - about not going to the same school.

Beech denies he was using Aubrey at this time and got caught out later. In the interview Beech was asked about the age and schools of Aubrey - when asked who he was talking about Beech says the answer applies to both John and Aubrey - he says he was probably referring to John.

Asked again, he says “I was referring to John” when he was mentioning Aubrey. He was then asked when he last contacted him - in the interview he said last contact was 30 years ago. Beech preciously said he was still in contact with John. Beech says this referred to John.

Beech agrees this is a lie. Because he didn’t want to give any information. In the interview Beech said he did not know where Aubrey was. Beech says he knew he was in California. Beech says he was not planning on giving them any information on John.

In the interview Beech says he and Aubrey never discussed what happened. Beech now says this is not true.

Court breaks for lunch. Returning at 2pm.

Tony Badenoch QC, for the prosecution, returns to the topic of “Aubrey” and whether it was true they met on a building site. Beech cannot recall if there was a building site. There’s wasn’t a building site of significance concerning John.

Beech confirms the friend that suffered the abuse with him did not attend any school Beech went to.

Too Many Secrets: Surviving a Child Sex Ring by Charles Chassereau. Beech says this was a book he wrote for his own purposes, without any intention to publish. Badenoch QC asks why the front cover is a picture of Beech with his cat - “it reminds me of good times”.

Beech says he wouldn’t describe it as a book “I wouldn’t really describe it as anything. It was just for me”. Beech agrees he wrote it for cathartic purposes.

Beech says this isn’t a fictitious account, that he wasn’t careful when he wrote it. He confirms he did write it.

Badenoch turns the court’s attention to the chapter called “My Best Friend” - “I don’t remember many friends except John, he was my best friend”. Beech confirms this is John who was abused with him.

Beech says this is not accurate - he says the description of his father not hitting him is wrong. When questioned why Beech placed the inaccuracies in this book, Beech says because this is a collection of memories. Judge Justice Goss QC intervened to ask for clarification.

Beech says he does have memories of John having bruises and so this is inaccurate. In the account it says “we stuck together at school”. But Beech says he didn’t go to school with John. He says he doesn’t know why he’s written this. “I don’t know”.

Beech says this part is fiction. He says he does not like reading fiction. Beech says for the majority of his school life he did only have one friend. Badenoch says John couldn’t be Beech’s only school friend because they didn’t go to school together.

“He lived at the end of my street. We loved Lego, cars and building dens in the building site at the end of my street.” Beech says John didn’t live at the end of his street and he doesn’t know why he wrote that. Beech says he has no recollection of a building site.

He says the Lego, cars and building dens is true but he cannot recall the building site. Beech says there are a series of fictions in this account and that they wouldn’t be helpful for cathartic purposes.

In the writing Beech says John was the only person who asked about any bruises he received. On the next page John and Aubrey appear together in the same paragraph.

In the document he says he found out John and he had been abused for the same amount of time and that Aubrey had told him that. Beech doesn’t know why he wrote Aubrey instead of John. He wrote “Aubrey told me he was glad I was there”. Beech says again, it should have been John.

Asked what was the point of writing Aubrey in his own personal writings, Beech said, “I don’t know”.

Beech says, counter to what Beech wrote, Aubrey didn’t check for bruises and that Aubrey did not suffer abuse. Beech says this is not a fiction about Aubrey but he doesn’t know why Aubrey is there and not John.

Three paragraphs set out the name Aubrey, in these Beech catalogues “horrendous sexual abuse”, here Beech says this relates to John, not Aubrey. He says he does not know why he’s using “Aubrey” instead of “John”.

Beech confirms he remembers writing the next bit about Aubrey and his father at the Wildlife park. Beech says it should have been John. In he document Beech said Aubrey’s dad was going to abuse Beech and Beech’s father Aubrey. Beech says it should have been Johns dad.

Beech says he was abused just the once by John’s dad. The same time as his dad. Beech says his father raped him at the wildlife park. Beech says John’s father touched him in the toilets, on the same occasion.

“The pain came from nowhere... I passed out from the trauma”. Beech says he might have passed out from the wildlife park. Badenoch says this is the first time you were raped so you remember that, did you pass out. Beech - I think yes.

Badenoch QC continues - Aubrey is mentioned again over the page. Beech says, again it should be John.

Beech says other than the school and the building site then the document is true. Judge Justice Goss QC intervenes again for clarification on whether Aubrey/John’s dad raped Beech, Beech says no.

Beech says he wrote this “around 2012” but he can’t be precise about this. He says he doesn’t recall whether he wrote this before or after the interview with the Wiltshire police. He says it could be 2013. He can’t recall.

Beech says the use of the name Aubrey when referring to a John is a fiction. He says he used Aubrey to mean John.

Returning to the interview with Wiltshire Police Dec 2012 Badenoch QC asks if there is any correlation between Too Many Secrets and using the name Aubrey to the police. Beech admits the name is the same. And it is fictional in both places “to refer to John”.

Beech admits in the three hour interview he told a number of lies to the Wiltshire police officer and confirms he withheld valuable information.

DS Lewis asked if Beech received any medical treatment for what happened to him. Beech said no, one of the group would see to my injuries if I had any, Beech said in the interview. Beech told Vicky Paterson he had a “catalogue of horrendous” injuries during his childhood.

Beech says the unnamed doctor looked after some of the injuries, not all. Beech says some of them weren’t looked after by anybody.

Beech says he did not tell DS Lewis about all the injuries. He says he did not tell him all. He did not tell him about the catalogue of injuries he was to tell Vicky Paterson. He says it was not something he was prepared to talk to them about.

“I don’t know whether he saved my life once, I don’t know.” Then more patchy memories of being underwater and then it all going black, is what Beech said in the interview in 2012.

Badenoch QC turns court attention the hospital document” when he wrote in the first person about someone else, he details almost dying here. In the interview the reference to almost dying underwater, Beech cannot recall where that event was, how old he was or if John was there.

Beech says from his professional judgement yes he probably did come close to death - “but obviously I’m still here, so...” Beech says he doesn’t have any recollection if he was delivered home to his nurse mother having nearly died.

Beech says he doesn’t remember much of this particular incident, only patches of it. He says he has detailed it in the interview there, that’s what he remembers. He can’t remember how old he was. He says he can’t recall if it was when he was in Wilton, Bicester or Kingston.

Badenoch QC suggests Beech can’t recall because he is making it all up. Beech says, no I’m not.x

Beech agrees being rendered unconscious can be very dangerous. In this account Beech says he has been rendered unconscious on a number of occasions but he can’t recall a specific number.

Badenoch says, same point Mr Beech, you can’t tell us because it didn’t happen. Beech says, yes it did.

Beech said there were other children, as well as Aubrey, with him. Beech says he didn’t tell them about the other children. Beech says he was giving falsehoods because he didn’t want to give the information.

“Boys, I don’t know their names or where they were or anything. One I saw just a couple of times, another I saw just the once.” Beech said in the interview. Badenoch suggests Beech was giving evidence he knew not to be true.

DS Lewis asked if there were anyone else involved and if Beech has the names. Beech says “No, no. My counsellor has asked me, but, a big part of me wants to know if they’re still around”.

Beech again says he was withholding details because he was not ready to share that information.

DS Lewis asks if Aubrey was in London. Beech agrees with Badenoch that the officer was making enquiries of someone who has no information to give. Beech in the interview says, not when I was there.

Beech says he doesn’t know why he added “whether he was taken there separately”. Beech agrees with Badenoch that John was with him in Dolphin Square and the Carlton Club and so he doesn’t know why he suggested, if he was taken there separately.

What would you like us to do with the information you have told, asks DS Lewis. Beech said, if we can identify one of these individuals. Beech confirms he knew the names but didn’t tell the police their names because he was hoping the police would find them themselves.

Beech admits the information was of “very little” help to the police.

Beech agrees he gave little or no information about diplomats. Agrees he terminated an interview in Jan 2016 because he was asked about diplomats.

Beech says he was abused in London by diplomats. He says he was abused in The Hilton and asked where else, he says it’s not something he wants to say. He says at other hotels, other houses and an embassy. He says it was at The Ritz hotel, Winfield House and he Saudi embassy.

Beech now being asked the name of the Saudis “Abdullah” and “Turkey”. Beech says only Turkey abused John and he was present for it.

Beech agrees this contains a series of points where he has withheld information. And that he has wilfully pointed them in the wrong direction.

DS Lewis called Beech the following year to say there was only one line of enquiry remaining - Aubrey. Badenoch says this was his opportunity to tell the officer this was a false line of enquiry. Beech says he did not take it.

In 2013 Beech made further contact with DS Lewis. Badenoch QC says it was to get a crime reference number did Beech could make a claim from the CICA. Beech agrees.

Beech confirms he knows a man called John Prance. He was best man at Beech’s wedding. He kept contact in adulthood. He was someone who worked overseas in the oil industry.

Court breaks for 10 minutes.

Email to John Prance 4th July 2011 - at this time Beech was living just with his son. His son at this time was at primary school.

In this email John Prance is sorry to hear about the split from Dawn, he hopes everyone is well and tells Beech he is working on a rig in Indonesia.

Beech says he does not recall taking pictures of small children outside his home address at this time. There are 29 images of boys with their shirts off, says Badenoch QC, but Beech has no recollection of these.

Beech says he was using a mobile phone in 2012, when he told Vicky Paterson John - who he was abused with - had called. Beech says the call was made on either a blackberry phone or an iPhone.

Beech says he cannot recall the combination of numbers made up John’s email address. He says he emailed John 2-4 times a year, up until 2015. Beech says he would email John from his Yahoo account or his Gmail one.

Badenoch turns to a document sent to Vicky Paterson. Lots of information about John. Beech cannot recall the exact address or road John lived at as a child. He says he lived in Oxford but doesn’t know the road. He lived in London but doesn’t know the name of the road.

Beech says he doesn’t know the name of the schools he went to or his dad’s name. He’s not aware if he had any siblings, he says he didn’t ask.

Beech says he and a John spoke about how John was. Beech says he saw bruises on John, that were probably worse than his own.

Beech says a John recovered after the two weeks he spent in hospital but he didn’t ask John what hospital he was in. Beech says he knew John was raped by his dad.

Beech says he saw John repeatedly year on year. Beech says he did not discuss the murders with John until 2014/2015. Badenoch says John was at the murder though, wasn’t he? beech says yes he was, but they didn’t discuss it until 2014.

Beech says he and John occasionally discussed part of the sexual abuse, they didn’t discuss who was responsible.

In 2012 Beech says he used to speak to someone called “Jack” on the internet using CSB44 as his identifier, Beech confirms.

Beech saved a conversation with “Jack” on his USB stick - he says this was his first conversation with Jack. Beech says Jack was “a guy who lives in America who became an important part of the family”

Beech says he first met “Jack” on the internet roughly in 2012. He says he felt Jack was someone he could confide in “at times, not initially”.

Beech says he only has one MacBook and so he would have messaged Jack on that. Badenoch asks if it’s the same one the 29 indecent images were found on.

Beech says at this time “Jack” was 18/19 - at this time Beech was 44. In this conversation he discusses counselling and abuse.

Beech told Jack he was given a number of pain killers to keep him silent but didn’t know what they were. Beech maintains this is true. He said he was injected in his legs and arms - in his thighs, front and side, he doesn’t know the number of times.

On his arms, Beech says he was injected in the tops of his arms and tops of his arms. He doesn’t recall if they were into veins.

“1989 when I went into my first counselling” Beech says this is true and was triggered by a 10 year old who had been admitted to the ward.

Beech says he was 12 nearly 13 when the abuse stopped, in the chat. Beech says this is wrong. In the chat he said it started the day after his 7th birthday. In court, Beech says this is wrong.

He discusses moving from Bicester to Kingston, in the chat Beech says he didn’t want to go. In ref to his friend he says his abuse stopped when he entered puberty and they are still in contact with each other.

Beech says “it’s amazing how our lives are linked, we got married at the same time.” Beech says this is not true. He says he was not prepared to give John’s name because he didn’t know who Jack was. He admits he did add falsehoods to this chat.

He says he moves from speaking about John, the person who has been abused with him, to John Prance. Beech says he realises he was getting too detailed about the John who was abused with him and so reverts to speaking about John Prance.

Beech says he doesn’t know what the point was of speaking about John Prance when “Jack” was asking about the John who was abused with him.

Beech says in this conversation he wasn’t ready to go any further with John so he changed back to John Prance, while talking to Jack.

Beech says Jack and he later discussed John Prance and the John who he was abused with. Judge Justice Goss QC intervened to clarify which John Beech was referring to.

Beech returns he conversation to abuse. Both sides of the conversation either side of “Indonesia” and the “rig” are about abuse. Beech says it is correct that each side of “Indonesia” and the “rig” was a falsehood.

Beech says the abuse did not start he day after his 7th birthday. He says he has no explanation as to why he told Jack this. He says it is not because he is given to saying fictional things.

Beech says his step father Ray Beech knew John’s father through the army. Beech doesn’t know John’s father’s name. Beech agrees we could have asked John - “if he had come forward, but he didn’t”.

“That was the time that I ended up in hospital”. This is after he has explained to Jack that he and John were raped by their fathers. Beech says he was not hospitalised after the wildlife park. Beech day he was referring to another time when he said he was hospitalised.

Beech says “unless I was mentioning another occasion or I could have said John was in hospital”. Beech says he has been to hospital, I don’t know if it was overnight or not. Beech says he was hospitalised for his arm and once to remove half a tooth that was broken.

Beech doesn’t recall how old he was when he was hospitalised for his arm.

Beech says he was taken away from the family home for a whole weekend. John says he was taken by the paedophile group. He cannot recall if they injured him. Beech says he was taken overnight, but not “that many” times.

Badenoch QC says parents tend to report children missing, why weren’t you? Beech says, if she thought I was staying over with somebody, why would she?

Judge Justice Goss QC intervenes to ask would you have known you were going to be away for the whole weekend and so did you tell her? Beech says, yes I would have done. But he cannot recall what he told her.

In the conversation to Jack Beech says he was abused just until his 12th birthday - Beech says that was wrong. In the conversation Beech says he was free for about a year, “until he found me”.

Beech says the “he” that found him, was Michael - Michael Hanley. Badenoch says it looks here that you were about to talk about your father, Beech says he was not. And that he was not going to communicate Michael’s name because he didn’t know how Jack was.

Beech admits he knew the name Michael Hanley in the spring of 2012 - Badenoch QC asks how he didn’t know the name Michael Hanley in Dec 2012? To which he says he did. Then he says he didn’t know Michael. Badenoch QC suggests he is making it up. Beech says no.

And so concludes court for today. Back tomorrow at 1000 tomorrow.