,
19 tweets,
11 min read
Read on Twitter
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre You don’t explain why Beech’s indecent images and voyeurism convictions were actually admitted into evidence. I’m able to do so since I personally attended a lot of the trial
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre There is a framework governing the admissibility of bad character evidence in criminal trials of all kinds. Such evidence appears when it is ruled admissible. It is not an unusual occurrence cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance…
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre In Beech’s case, his convictions were admitted into evidence after the judge decided they were relevant to important matters in issue between the parties, which is one of the ‘gateways’ through which such evidence can be admitted
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre The judge did so for the three following reasons submitted by the prosecution:
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre First, it demonstrated Beech had an interest in the subject matter of his allegations, namely the sexual abuse of young boys by men, entirely independent of his claim that such abuse actually took place
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre Second, it was relevant to whether he had a propensity to lie in relation to criminal inquiries, since he had lied to the police officers investigating his offending against children
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre Third, it was relevant to a propensity to deploy technology to hide his offending, which was at issue in relation to his use of an encrypted email account to pose as a fake collaborative witness during Operation Midland
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre On the first point, let’s be clear: some of the abuse images possessed by Beech were very extreme and sadistic by any standards, however debased. Several involved a bound and blindfolded child – horrific stuff
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre Also, since Beech’s entire defence, when it finally emerged, was an attack on the character of others – calling them murderers, rapists and torturers – I imagine that factual evidence about his own character would have become admissible for that reason too
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre This is another of the ‘gateways’ through which bad character evidence can be admitted into criminal trials. See 'gateway 7' in the above link
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre Regarding a separate issue you raise, there was some very precise information during the trial about research Beech carried out using his work computer
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre With your specific example of Dolphin Square, you say it is “completely false” that Beech researched it prior to his Met interviews. But that is untrue
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre The agreed evidence in court was that Beech researched Dolphin Square in May 2014, which was months before his Met interviews. It was also before the first Exaro article about his Dolphin Square claims
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre In relation to the rejected defence application about material gathered by other forces – material described by the defence as “credible” – what you don’t include is the following line from the judge’s indicative ruling:
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre “It was not unreasonable, in all the circumstances, to rely on the conclusions of other investigating forces as to conclusions reached as to the credibility and reliability of historical complaints made against high profile individuals for the various reasons identified.”
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre The Erskine Barracks claims that featured in Operation Conifer were obviously not detailed in its published summary report because they were not allegations for which Wiltshire said Sir Edward Heath would have been interviewed under caution if he was alive
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre Indeed, the allegations mentioned probably fell into the ‘ritual abuse’ strand, for which Wiltshire said: “Following investigation, no further corroborative evidence was found to support the disclosures that Sir Edward Heath was involved in ritual abuse”
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre Regarding the fraud conviction, you say “Beech made his claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) four years before he went to the Met”. But, in fact, he submitted the claim only a year before
@MarkWatts_1 @FOIACentre His CICA claim form was submitted on September 2013 and his first Met interviews were in October 2014. He then received the money during Operation Midland, spending a lot of it on a convertible car
