Michael Rogers Messenger Chats with Aunt
Today two weeks ago I talked to an aunt of Michael Rogers who is with her husband ‘filling in’ for his deceased parents and his oldest brother who died at age 56 while working hard on getting an appeal together against Michael’s unsafe conviction. I heard that his surviving brother fell ill in China with the same ‘brain blood clot’ condition. The hospital in China charged £700 per day – the aunt and her husband decided to re-mortgage their home to raise £60k to get him back into the UK a few weeks ago. He is unlikely to make it for much longer…
People like Ched Edwards got resources to challenge ‘unsafe’ convictions:
What about poor and vulnerable people? Virtually no chance.
Michael’s aunt kindly provided me with Messenger chats covering the period up to the ‘guilty’ ruling in the clandestine criminal trial – an outcome that came utterly unexpected for Michael who had been led to believe that the case of the prosecution was weak and that refraining from testimony was advisable. I uploaded to this blog the chat with minor redactions to illustrate what I believe to be a travesty. Persecution. Poverty. Infliction of Legal Trauma.
Michael wrote on 16/11/2013 13:21 about his daughters’ Facebook profiles: ‘I can see L. been made ‘prefect’ now, she got a ‘prefect’ badge, which does not surprise me. I’ve taught her ALL I know…!! I just hope I can get solicitor to try get normality sorted out sometime soon as it’s been totally ridiculous. Or as L. says ‘ridogulous’ (from one of our fav films, Bolt!).
Normality ceased in 2011. At the end of 2010 Marie Black, his partner for 18 months, moved with her children back to Norwich. In early 2011 Norwich County Council coerced Marie into signing a ‘Voluntary Section 20’ agreement on which basis her children were taken into care – ostensibly ‘temporarily’. However when a 4 bedroom house was ready the authorities repeatedly refused to return the children appealing immediately against several Court Orders to return them. Michael Rogers became involved in the court case as an ‘Intervener’ and observed controversial Psychiatrist Anthony Baker give oral evidence.
The second of Marie’s children had experienced early trauma (shattered glass door at 3 months & facial injury at 2 years) and ‘Urinary Tract Infection’ from the age of 3 necessitating many medical examination. From the age of 4 the child was known to ‘make things up’. While in ‘temporary foster care’ the child claimed that Marie wanted to take back only this child and one other but not the rest. The foster carers were fully aware that this was a lie.
After 8 months of persecuting Marie Black Social Workers ‘out-of-the-blue’ produced pages of allegations of sexual abuse featuring (eventually) 40+ relatives, friends and members of institutions. No prior concerns had been raised. There were no police interviews and no investigation. Odd!?!
Marie’s mum angrily burst into a meeting room where authority representatives were sitting around a table – seemingly smirking and celebrating that they managed to obstruct (yet again) return of the children. Oddly an authority representative from a different UK region was present in the room who had no formal role whatsoever at this point in time – but shortly afterwards assumed a key role. Disgraced Psychiatrist Anthony Baker was instructed by the authorities (why-oh-why?):
Marie & Joe
Marie Black did NOT observe Anthony Baker giving oral evidence as she had fallen pregnant and she needed to go to hospital. Who fathered this child? Joe Ollis. Again.
Joe and Marie were teenage sweethearts for 4 years leading to the birth of their first child (who is said to be highly intelligent). They got together comforting each other: Marie had suffered stalking and abuse that necessitated her family to escape (in the face of local police turning a blind eye) by moving home – see earlier post. Joe had suffered the sudden loss of his father. After giving birth Marie and the baby lived in her parental home. The teenage parents broke up when their child was 1 year old.
In the context of the abuse allegations levelled at the ‘Norwich Three’ Marie re-established contact with Joe who undertook a DNA paternity test. Between the extremes of 0% and 99% match there appear to be many shades of grey:
A Social Worker informed Joe and Marie’s oldest child that Joe’s paternity had been confirmed through DNA testing. However shortly afterwards the authorities claimed that the match value was ‘insufficient’. Marie insisted on a second paternity test which came out with a nearly identical match value. The authorities claimed that the match value was not high enough (how convenient!) and since then proceedings recorded the father of Marie’s first child as ‘unknown’. What is the psychological impact on a child to be told that the biological father has been identified only to have the certainty and hope associated with such news dashed a few days later? What is a sensible ‘Match’ value when a father and mother claim parenthood?
In the light of authority unreasonableness Marie and Joe realised their vision to live in France where Joe’s mum had resided for many years. Without any medical proof Norwich authorities claimed that Joe was a violent person who once broke Marie’s arm yet refused to release Marie’s NHS medical records. Norwich County Council seemingly used subterfuge to get the French authorities to seize new born baby Luna from their parents and get the baby handed over to their Social Workers.
Due to a few lucky co-incidences Birmingham solicitor Brendon Flemings, one of the few legal professionals prepared to take on the all-powerful Councils, took on the case and succeeded in getting Luna returned. Joe Ollis and Marie Black (formerly known as Marie Adams) were interviewed about the ordeal by Sue Reid whose insightful article appeared on 1 August 2012:
‘Satanist Death Cult’, ‘Confabulation’ or ‘Coaching’?
Authorities insisted on a DNA sample of Marie’s father insinuating that her first child may have been the result of incest. Marie’s father objected to the preposterous suggestion and explained that he had a vasectomy after the birth of his two daughters. DNA testing – of course – ruled him out. Next the authorities tried to pin another relative who also was also ruled out. Infliction of ‘Legal Trauma’?
It is of note here that in ‘real’ extreme abuse circles it is common that a father is simultaneously a grandfather of a baby. In such settings the impregnation (through incestuous rape) is timed in such a way that the new born baby becomes available for a Human Sacrifice Ritual at an important date in the cult’s calendar. The blood of the baby is drunk and the flesh consumed by cult members. There are now quite a few disclosures in the public domain some of which are featured in the ‘Extreme Abuse Dossier’ alongside successful prosecutions of extreme abusers:
More recent cases are summarised below with an intriguing suggestion that Colin Batley was perhaps not so much a ‘self-styled’ high priest but that he was a member of the ‘Illuminates of Thanateros’:
Interesting observation here about how long it took to bring Colin Batley to account:
It took a decade before police took allegations against Colin Batley seriously, during which time he remained free to abuse. Even after three of his child victims had grown to adulthood and came forward independently it still took another three years before anything was done. I am reliably informed (by someone directly involved with the investigation) that the officers who successfully prosecuted him had to go against orders from ‘higher up’, and were passed up for promotion. Doing the right thing, it seems, proved bad for their careers!
I have spoken to several survivors of extreme abuse including one in Germany who disclosed that she was made to kill her new born baby – in front of ecstatic cult members in a castle. Experience of ‘Forced Impregnation’ was in the Extreme Abuse Survey endorsed by 40% of 1041 survivors and 71% of 220 professionals responding. Results of the Extreme Abuse Survey can be downloaded free-of-charge from the website of US Clinical Psychologist Ellen Lacter:
The Kingston-Wales Child Smuggling case revolves around an extreme abuse network and featured disclosures of a total of five new born babies that ’disappeared’:
Reportedly a couple was lodging with this Kingston-based family and had a baby. One day the couple and their baby were gone – a traumatic experience for the landlord’s pre-teen daughter. Police later claimed that the couple had been found dead in a car and that they did not know about a baby (cults leave babies ‘unregistered’ to have a ‘disposable child’ that can be deployed according to the cult’s plans).
At age 7 or 8 the landlord reportedly got his daughter to perform sex acts with a girl of a similar age on a stage in front of an audience of cult associates (note ‘occult shows’ are all-the-rage in Hollywood). Some years later it transpired that the other girl was made to have three babies that ‘disappeared’. As an adult this female managed to get her father behind bars (for a few years) for child sexual abuse based in part on her detailed diary entries. However her own Barrister ‘recommended’ not to mention the babies that disappeared as this could make the jury disbelieve her and side with the alleged perpetrator. While understandable on an individual case basis such legal handling of the situation perpetuates the widespread ‘Discourse of Disbelief’ promoted by vested interests.
Around the time the landlord’s daughter got impregnated her parents removed all calendars in the home. At some point in the pregnancy they applied for home-schooling. In the course of preparing an appeal I contacted the school that provided materials that would be helpful for a proper investigation. However ‘The System’ would do anything to prevent an appeal that would have to be heard in Open Court. I got a flavour of this when I tried to submit a 188 page judicial review application that got thwarted by the Royal Court of (In)Justice clerk who phoned around (perhaps prompted by 20 headings featuring the word ‘Misconduct’ and spooked by the crime map with six large and 2 small crosses?) and erroneously claimed that the three identical folders I had prepared would have to be submitted at the court where the original ‘Forced Adoption’ court ruling had been made. It was the afternoon of the final day of the period allowed after a ruling – fallen at the first hurdle!
The question arises to what extent such chilling stories represent real crimes, confabulation or results of manipulation/coaching?
In the case of the ‘Norwich Three’ Marie’s 2nd child had a known tendency to ‘confabulate’ with teachers complaining about fibs at the age of 4 years. This child claimed (after many months in ‘foster care’) that Marie ostensibly put a baby that her friend had ‘run over’ into a bag, carried it into her house and made her children drink its blood! The foster carer seemingly ‘believed’ this story (possibly egging on this kind of confabulation). What is the credibility of these allegations when the friend did not own a car and did not even have a driving licence? No baby was reported missing and no dead baby was found.
Without any physical evidence a criminal case ensued against 10 defendants most of whom were members of Marie’s family while many of the remaining 30 ‘alleged abusers’ were not even interviewed by police! In extremely dubious circumstances Marie and two former partners were found guilty of sexual abuse.
Broadly in parallel a 9 year old boy and his 8 year old sister living in Hampstead (North London) made disconcerting disclosures in September 2014 to their mother and her boyfriend concerning extreme abuse and murder of babies (‘Ritual Sacrifice’?). Video recordings appeared on the Internet in February 2015 that were reportedly viewed by 4 Million individuals across the world. The astonishing disclosures implicated family members, friends and members of institutions. Ricky Dearman, the man at the centre of the allegations, denied all wrongdoing and was afforded an interview on the BBC Victoria Derbyshire program (that did not mention his ‘acting career’). Several websites sprung up:
In February 2017 a headline screamed ‘Group of women who say they were abused by Sir Edward Heath also claim their parents ran a satanic sex cult that was involved in SIXTEEN child murders’ – a claim found credible by the police chief of Wiltshire:
The claims were reportedly dismissed when they first surfaced in 1989. Since then a society-wide ‘Discourse of Disbelief’ has been drip fed that ritual abuse does not exist. Some months ago Wiltshire police reportedly arrested two individuals on child sexual abuse charges. I made contact with the officer who had interviewed me earlier expressing hopes that the Kingston Terminator (see previous post) may have been arrested together with his accomplice wife. However it seems more likely that the parents of the ‘group of women’ may have been apprehended.
The three cases surveyed suggest that a lot more investigation should be carried out that is commensurate with the seriousness of extreme abuse and ritual sacrifice murder. The ‘Hampstead Kids’ and ‘Norwich Three’ rulings both appear extremely unsafe:
‘I, Michael Rogers’
The persecution of Michael resembles the narrative in Ken Loach’s gritty movie ‘I, Daniel Blake’. Michael was bullied by an arrogant job centre advisor. Sacked by a spineless employer. His bank ominously barred his account (coincidentally?) at the worst possible time setting about a chain of events leading to a period of homelessness (possessions in storage; some nights sleeping in the car, then B&B). Police ‘pounced’ on the opportunity to impose strict bail conditions and confiscated his mobile phone. To qualify for Legal Aid he had to resign from his job – classic authority imposed ‘double-bind’. Bicycle stolen. Preparing a SORN declaration for his car. For 4 years living under a dark cloud, then swallowed up by the cloud.
How difficult would it be to figure out that the children were manipulated into making false allegations? Michael’s initial solicitor just read the letter from Norfolk County Council and remarked almost immediately (what does this say about the state of so-called ‘Child Protection’?):
“this looks like a plan to get the kids off the mum”
Michael mused in the message chat:
I just looked at her, thinking also, is it that obvious??!!
When the aunt hears about the detailed allegation on 14th August 2014 her response hits the nail on the head:
‘Michael I am lost for words. I don’t know these children obviously but it all sounds like a make believe game where every time a child is spoken to, they try to outdo their story.’
A chilling reality is that the children made allegations about 40(!) individuals but only family and friends of Marie Black were made defendants.
Yes <Aunt> you dead right to be lost for words. I been like that for last 3 years at least, thinking what on earth?? No, <ex-wife> not a defendant, but anyone who is actually ‘mentioned’ should be brought forward as a defendant though, shouldn’t they? That issue alone was brought up 3 years ago by one of barristers, Marie’s I think but not sure, at fact finding hearing. I mentioned it to my brief, saying “everyone who is mentioned AT ALL should be a defendant. It’s not rocket science“. I tell you his answer. “Yes but there’s a core of you mentioned time and time again”. He made my blood boil and I felt helpless. I thought and knew, no matter what, no matter how many times someone is mentioned that they become a defendant?? A mention is a mention. Wether it’s true or not.
The aunt can see through the shenanigans right away (why could the judge not?):
‘Well Michael, I am surprised as you are about the apparent selective method of choosing who is a defendant and who is not. Obviously the CPS think that the more someone is mentioned, the more likely the jury will be to convict. It’s a real eye opener!’
It is obvious that in a ‘make believe tale’ competition the immediate family and closest friends will feature most frequently. Is this why the media coverage in the criminal case never mentioned that Marie’s children had been ‘taken into care’ on a voluntary section 20 arrangement and never returned, that Luna was exposed to ‘kidnap trauma’ in France due to Norwich County Council errors and (just about) returned, and that the defendants were family or close friends?
What would happen if authorities properly followed up ALL disclosures? I guess that more and more contradictions with the ‘real world’ (I heard a few from former defendants) would become apparent exposing the children as unreliable witnesses and the foster carers as manipulators pushing an evil ‘Parental Alienation’ agenda for the ‘best interest of the Forced Adoption and Care’ industry. Teachers were named – how would they have reacted if threatening letters had arrived at their doorsteps? With a clear conscience they probably would have invoked Teacher’s Union and/or Professional Indemnity insurance to challenge the ‘myth’ created by vested interests, or mobilised fellow teachers, parents and school alumni. Did authorities only go for the ‘low hanging fruits’ – disadvantaged individuals who already had more than their fair share of trauma and challenge?
What kind of stories are there? Here is just one of them:
‘All this is statements from foster carers. most if not all lies. There was mention one point of me dressing up as Father Christmas and apparently scaring the kids? I’ve never dressed up at all. Not even as Father Christmas.’
On 03/10/2014 news about the Social Worker interfering with Foster Carer reports came out:
‘<Aunt>, well my sol called yesterday, Thurs. Apparently (hope i get this right) the s/w for these f/c’s has dug herself a huge hole and probably difficult to get out of, if at all… She (the s/w) went and changed, edited original notes from foster carers after notes were put on a certain computer system called ‘CARE FIRST’ (I think). It’s a process they supposed to do apparently. But this s/w took it on herslef to change, edit the notes. Which is unbelievable, and very disturbing. And she (s/w) now due to be arrested, questioned etc and maybe more, maybe face prison or something (i personally hope so). Just got to wait and see though. I think i got the jist of it. Solicitor went throught it quite quick as she was technically outside her hours at the time, 1845 last night!! I was trying to take all in quickly, so it was hard!! But if true how idiotic eh?!
The Aunt immediately understood the significance of this (which the judge unfortunately never did):
Gosh Michael, this case is getting more and more weird. What implications will this latest fiasco have on the trial? Hopefully, the judge will throw it out!!
Social Workers removing the ‘leading questions’ that the children got bombarded with. Apparently 6 months of foster carer records covering the crucial period when the children were told they would NOT return to their mother – lost. Why did the CPS proceed in these farcical circumstances? Why did the judge not throw out the case? To save the establishment embarrassment? To shield the ‘Forced Adoption and Care Industry’? To punish Marie for having Luna and preventing Norwich to add her to their ‘collection’? Because the ‘super-tanker’ was unstoppable? Because no one would notice and speak up for the ‘Norwich Three’?
On 07/11/2014 Michael wrote he was made to see a Psychiatrist. The infliction of ‘Legal Trauma’ by Norwich County Council nearly had the lethal effect as the authority persecution had on the main protagonist in ‘I, Daniel Blake’:
‘I’ve seen a psychiatrist before now, earlier this year, again firm procedure, and result was good, all clear, no concerns. Anyway, this meeting yesterday started okay, but went a bit pearshaped. I was basically a mixture of tired, stressed out, sense of frustration, all round and I basically broke down, in front of the psychologist and sol. I was tired from being up since 4, leaving at half 4, driving to Barking area in East London, about a mile from Barking tube station, and getting tube to Temple station near solicitor’s. Apart from being tired otherwise, all this waiting etc and trying to move back to Romford when damn CPS let me!! I’ve asked sol just WHAT is their problem??!! Well I got as bad as sol and the psych getting an ambulance in the end. I was that bad. 2 paramedics came, 1 dealt with me. It just so happened I was starting to be able to calm down eventually. I got no idea how long it was. But I told paramedic basically this whole nonsense from 3 and half years ago now, since I got letter from NCC in Feb’11 and being arrested twice, co-operating accordingly. but trying to put a brave face on things, when it’s almost impossible. He said something almost straight away regarding this letter and being arrested that made me think “oh my god” in that IF there’s ANY such crime of ANY nature happens, the FIRST thing one does is…..call the police. Which he said. And NOT drum up some letter, as scaremongery, and be arrested a year later??!! You’d call police straight away. Which didn’t happen. I just looked at him. He lifted his shoulders up and down. A paramedic, we don’t know each other, yet he said in about 10 minutes flat, if that, what he just said. I couldn’t help but scoff.’
Everyone hearing Michael’s story grasp the issues very quickly. How can ‘well-educated professionals’ be so blind, oblivious and indifferent to the truth? Protecting ‘The System’ at any cost!
I had to take a deep breath and close down my laptop when I read what Michael typed in Messenger on 30/01/2015 19:24:
‘One thing my barr mentioned in private though was fact of other kids (not Marie’s kids) with foster carers apparently been saying same things??!! He left it at that. I can only think that’s on our side?’
What does this mean? Are these foster carers specialising in the dark art of ‘Parental Alienation’ turning children against their biological parents? What greater child cruelty could there be than brainwashing your foster children into falsely believing that their parents, family and friends sexually abused them? An even greater cruelty would be to farm this role out to prior foster children – to let them do the ‘dirty work’!
Why am I so angry and shocked about this? In ‘real’ (or at least ‘realistic’) extreme abuse cases that went to criminal trial self-declared child victims were forced to give testimony for hours and hours – and in the end in spite of consistency were ‘disbelieved’ with Alisha Owen in the notorious Franklin case even ‘convicted’ of ‘Perjury’. If ‘The Establishment’ gets its way ‘Nick’ in the UK will share this fate – a stern warning to anyone else who is thinking about disclosing their story.
I recall Randy Noblitt, co-author of the excellent ‘Ritual abuse in the 21st century’, coming under pressure for his testimony by the ‘Disbelievers’ and steadfastly explaining that in a specific case each sibling group was kept apart to rule out cross-contamination of stories. Marie had many children and naturally even ‘in care’ efforts would have been made (presumably) for the siblings to continue interacting. An inevitable side effect is that ‘round the kitchen table’ all sorts of stories could be co-created – rendering long-delayed disclosures rather questionable. How much worse must such cross-contamination become if previous foster care kids who believe they were abused by their biological parents were interacting with the kids of Marie? Cross-contamination Galore!
During the same period the defendants were barred from communicating leaving them with little opportunity to ‘catch’ the contradictions. A particular strong counter to the allegations is that Michael Rogers had never met Jason Adams summarily discrediting all abuse claims where both men would have ostensibly been present.
On 13/02/2015 18:31 Michael got me reaching for my dictionary.
‘I tried calling sol’s office (again) about 4.45 earlier, but sol (Des) not available at the time. I’m having trouble contacting him! We’ve only spoken the one time, last year, as he took over from my original sol on her her last week there. He’s replied via email a few times though. I know I’m only on legal aid, and it’s ‘skeleton help’, basic, as it were, be different if I funded this myself, but it all feels a bit ‘je ne sais quais’?! I don’t know… Anyway, I ‘m going to try call again Monday now. More waiting…’
je ne sais quoinoun [ S ]
UK /ˌʒə nə seɪ ˈkwɑː/ US /ˌʒə nə seɪ ˈkwɑː/
French for ‘I don’t know what’: a pleasing quality that cannot be exactly named or described
a quality that cannot be described or named easily.
“that je ne sais quoi which makes a professional”
What are the qualities professionals need to succeed in the Child Protection Trojan horse of today?
Read Lynne Wrennel’s illuminating (sic) article:
‘Always 2 sides to every story…’ Michael writes on the 21st February and reveals a chilling concern:
‘I might be thinking of changing lawyers ,if not too late, as I’m not getting good vibes at all from this new chap I got. He’s got few things wrong so far, and possibly assuming, guessing things, which just should not happen. Even my barrister got couple of things wrong at PTR in Dec. But just yesterday, my new lawyer made too many mistakes for my liking. One would be too many, it’s just not on.’
On 10/03/2015 17:18 more chilling disclosures about supine legal personnel (Michael was close to sacking his legal representatives but was talked out of it) – whose interested is this QC representing?
‘Went to sol’s again yesterday to try clear up an issue I wasn’t happy with. But looks like I’m stuck with a QC who said totally the wrong thing when I met her last year. Even my solicitor, (first one last year) agreed and my barrister thought what she said was unacceptable.’
‘There are and have been so many grey areas since these allegations came from NCC, it’s crazy. And I said so. Maybe I shouldn’t have. I don’t know.’
‘There’s no justice anywhere. My sense of trust is an all-time low too.’
On 17th March some insights into the spuriousness of the case:
‘In my mind and other defendants, there is no case, But if it’s case of lawyers, barristers, judges, see sight of or get whiff of ‘pounds’ at all, then they probably going to milk it??’
‘I’m in a position, insane position, which I just should not be in anyway. Almost seems like mission blooming impossible…’
‘I’m going to see my gp next week (Thurs) re new sick certificate from work, and able to apply for hb at least, for duration of this poxy trial, till I either end up ‘inside’ or end up free, back to normal. If justice prevails.’
More bad vibes about the QC and the solicitor (who seemingly wants through a ruse of a ‘quick meeting’ prevent Michael from attending a hearing – whose side is that solicitor on?):
‘I got a ‘quick meeting‘ at sol’s again tomorrow. God knows what about or what for, but I’ll probably find out, hopefully at least. And same day as there’s supposed to be this last hearing, PTR, which I had in mind to go, but not sure now. And I really shouldn’t be saying this next bit, BUT, I’m really not too keen on the solicitor I got now. He took over my original sol who left the firm just before Xmas. Nor am I too happy with QC (silk) I got either. I have mentioned it, but the firm ‘sings’ her praises, but I’m just not sure myself. And as I said at office last time, if I have to wait till my time come trila, to ‘say things, my side of story’, then so be it. All sol keeps saying or kept saying was ‘ok, ok’. It sounded like a brush -off to me. Have to wait and see.’
On 13/04/2015 15:30 yet again unhappy about legal representation and eagerly awaiting his opportunity to tell his story (shenanigans follow that fatally reduce this enthusiasm with chilling consequences):
‘I’m not happy with my legal team still. I preferred my first solicitor except she did get couple of things wrong herself, BUT I’m just going to have to wait till I get my side of story, my turn when I can, with or without sol or barrister help. Yep, trial coming up Monday still. Roll on…’
Some insights on 13/04/2015 19:16 into the chaotic case – what is going on at Norwich County Council?
‘My sol called earlier, asking me to pop in to office tomorrow, 10am for instructions on more papers been served. I don’t really mind too much, albeit to say it’s almighty “weird”, like week before trial due and there’s still more papers being served. Same has happened last 2 weeks or so. But it’s been same papers as I’ve been through last year!! To me, it’s Norfolk council sounding ‘desperate’ , trying to get somewhere, trying to make something from nothing. I’m not worried what it is at all, just blooming curious I suppose.’
A fighting attitude and spookily true words on 14/04/2015 15:13:
‘But I’m still looking forward to it though. It just sounds really strange, weird to be thinking that let alone say it, to look forward to a trial. But so be it. And I’ve got a lot to fight for too. Normality, in a word. I’ve been through a heck of a lot of paperwork, most of it a load of crap. I know, realise, Norfolk council have got A LOT to lose. A heck of a lot. They have. Even a mate of mine said that. And they’ll try ANYTHING to try to get their own way. I’ve seen a lot of it in paperwork so far!! So much RUBBISH. One thing tough, I’ll try let you know when I’m due at the stand or whatever it’s called, as soon as I know myself. Except if I don’t know till last second, it could prove awkward, but I’ll try anyway.’
First day of court 20/04/2015 18:38 – just learned something new about a ‘Nanny’:
‘The kids Nanny, who the kids themselves ALWAYS went to for love and comfort etc, she had an extra charge. She also pleaded not guilty.’
Hold on – must be the grandmother (who I talked to half a dozen times). Absolutely unbelievable what she was ‘sent down’ for. The foster carers claimed she pierced one of the children with a BBQ skewer during a contact session in her home. Michael says he never saw a skewer at the BBQs he attended at that home. The taxi driver did not notice anything on a 20 minute journey back. On arrival the foster carers did not ‘bother’ getting medical help and securing evidence. Unbelievably Granny spent 3 months in Peterborough prison ‘convicted’ (based on foster carers say so) of GBH. It is my view that these foster carers should be charged with neglect and relieved of their responsibility for the foster children in their care.
There were allegations made by the oldest child that the Grandfather pushed this child down the stairs on the day the children were taken into care, and that he poured cornflakes and milk all over this child. Strangely the child went to school and no one found anything untoward. This absurd allegation was thrown out due to inconsistencies and the proper conduct of his diligent legal representative.
On 21/04/2015 17:10 Michael writes:
‘trial’ can be and is a big horrible word.
The last for 4 years already had been a trial (or ordeal), and the trial would be followed by a 24 year ordeal (or travesty) – courtesy of the clandestine authority activities and inadequate ‘legal representatives’ of the four defendants that were not cleared.
‘another of defendants had 4 extra charges on him today, to plead to, which he pleaded guilty, after consulting his brief. But this was years ago, before I was on the scene with Marie, and he served time in prison for it. And he acknowledged all this at civil case in 2011, family court. But, he pleaded guilty anyway, 4 counts, to cruelty.
Why were these charges sprung on this defendant at the last minute? To wrong-foot the man (Jason Adams – former husband of Marie) and lay the ‘closed loop’ foundation for the judge’s cruel and misleading ‘summing up’ and (mis)direction of the jury? How long did the ‘vested interests’ work on concocting this particular sequence of manipulation?
Even I – without any legal training – have heard of ‘double-jeopardy’ rules – why-oh-why are the legally qualified people (including the most senior appeal court judges in the country) letting this happen? Why did Jason’s ‘brief’ advise to plead guilty rather than invoke ‘Double Jeopardy’ arguments? The whole case should be ruled a ‘mistrial’ even on the basis of this irregularity alone!
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction.
If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries, including Canada, Mexico and the United States, the guarantee against being “twice put in jeopardy” is a constitutional right. In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute. In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit (formerly acquitted) or autrefois convict (formerly convicted), with the same effect.
On 22/04/2015 he comments:
Today, Marie’s kids’ intermediary got sworn in and most if not all barristers questioned her, or grilled her even. Mine was good. He asked about ‘age relevance’ questions, just exactly what I was thinking at the time. And I told him in private after. Made us both smile. I’m sure he can read my mind….
…this kids’ intermediary, bearing in mind her POSITION, her TITLE, boy have I got issues with some of her answers what she gave today. Already. I wrote them down anyway. And if not raised by Marie’s immediate family, (bound to be – they were discussing between themselves galore) then I’ll raise with my barrister myself. And believe me there were issues. Even at this early stage, just with the intermediary.
I believe we’ve ALL lost any jobs we did have, all of us. Scandalous. And yes I been writing notes. When and where necessary. It’s helping to keep the mind clear, to save relying on memory so much, plus being able to possibly refer to notes written down too, in case needed?? You know what I mean no doubt. I did use to think, “what’s the point?”, of making notes? Surely that’s where sol and or barrister comes in?? BUT, not necessarily. As I’ve found out. Boy it helps to make notes, no matter how irrelevant it might seem. Blooming annoying! But if it helps the cause then so be it. In other words I’m slowly becoming or turning into a solicitor at the moment!! Without realising it! About today, all barristers said about quantity and quality of questions for Marie’s kids, when they come in. Not sure when that is though. They got to try to keep it as few as possible.
On 27/04/2015 some comments on the prosecution (or should that be ‘persecution’?) and Michael’s eagerness to tell his story:
To let you know, prosecution said her bit today. Loads of lies though. I’m making notes here and there. Yes it was fairly annoying, frustrating, hearing her rabbit like she did, but I’m just waiting for my turn. When I say loads of lies, it wasn’t all. There was a couple of true bits that I know of. But otherwise, rest are lies.
On 29/04/2015 testimony from Marie’s eldest child:
Video-link of Marie’s eldest, I won’t say name. BUT, although said about me and this former husband of Marie being mean and or violent ( me mean, this other defendant, violent), did NOT say anything untowards, or illegal happened.
It is disturbing that this child on a previous occasion reportedly burst in a recorded session ‘suddenly’ into a ‘scatter-gun’ mode making allegations of sexual abuse against all and sundry. Was he coached, manipulated, coerced and/or hypnotised into making false allegations ‘to get the judicial persecution started’?
On 05/05/2015 comments on the testimony of the (fourth?) child:
Another tiny good point came up today. But again possibly huge. My QC put 1 quite simple question to this other _____ of Marie, via live video link. If _____ remembered a flipping game we used to play (they ALL used to play, including R & L). She even described it, walking up my knees and flipping themselves over. _____ said no. I was stunned, gobsmacked. (this _____ would say ‘stop’ eventually as we did it too much. And I did stop.)
What does it mean that the (fourth?) child did not remember a harmless game (which SS of course twisted into a ‘sexualised’ activity) that all children participated in? Does the child have ‘amnesia’ issues? If the child cannot remember such everyday activity it raises grave doubts about the reliability and validity of any ‘abuse’ disclosures.
On 06/05/2015 some references to another one of Marie’s children (probably the third oldest who reportedly defended Marie saying ‘Mummy never did that’?):
Today there were ‘live’ questions from certain barr’s to this _____. MIne asked few simple ones, last being if _____ wanted to stay in Romford (rather than go back to Norwich, as I thought was case), and _____ said “yes”. Which surprised me. Because I thought or knew rather they were ALL homesick, plus if there was anything untoward going on, she would equally have said “no” to staying at mine in Romford. If that makes sense?? I just thought and expected _____ to say “no”. But… ! There’s more ABE’s to follow. Then the foster carers come in, next week I believe. Yes it’s been horrible, nasty, painful, so far. But, as I’ve said to my QC, barr and both intermediaries so far, it’s knowing what’s true and NOT true, in my mind. And trying to prove it.
I am confused and concerned about the entry on 07/05/2015 which probably refers to the 2nd oldest child who has been known to ‘confabulate’ since age 4:
It’s okay really (?!). I was warned about this before anyway, from you too. BUT, the bottom line being knowing what’s true, what’s not. It’s just sitting through all the junk. Let them get on with it! Like today, there was nearly call for boxing gloves. Yep seriously. Between judge, prosecution and 1 barrister, but not mine. Prosecution and judge WANTED 1 particular child be brought in, be questioned “live” as has 2 others so far. BUT, none other barr’s felt the need. Mine said “too many inconsistencies” in old video evidence (ABE’s). Which she told judge directly. Prosecution and judge reluctantly agreed in the end NOT to bring this child in for questions. It was messy. But anyway, more videos tomorrow apparently. And that’s story so far…
What is this about? Why would the defence barristers decline to cross-examine the ‘main’ source of the sexual abuse allegations? The reliability and validity of the child witness disclosures surely must be properly tested in court, and if appropriate dismissed? Why would the barristers vehemently refuse to have this child brought in for questioning?
It is a fact that Marie greatly regrets not taking the stand to give testimony. She reportedly was manipulated by her own legal representatives who cowed her by referring to the hundreds of prosecution pages that questions may relate to. The trouble seems to be that her own legal team had largely swallowed the ‘prosecution’ side of the story and accused Marie of not giving a clear account of the situations the children reportedly referred to. It was as difficult for all defendants to comprehend the nightmare situation they found themselves in with no knowledge of any of these alleged abuses.
Apparently Jason Adams, who was the first defendant, was at one point asked by the judge whether he believed the children had been abused. When he responded ‘I believe the children have been abused…’ he reportedly was ‘cut-off’ mid-sentence by the judge before he could finish ‘…by the foster carers’.
A very bizarre situation developed with the Nanny who got manipulated by one of the defence representatives into agreeing ‘There must have been some abuse’ (which was later pounced on in an unfair manner by the judge). Her husband recognised the lead up of the questioning yet had to helplessly watch his wife being ‘set up’. He stated that until the end of the Prosecution’s case he was on tenterhooks (i.e. in a state of uncomfortable suspense) to hear any ‘smoking gun’ evidence. There was none.
There was last of ABE’s (video evidence) yesterday, Friday, and was the youngest child. There was nothing in it. ____, like the others I think, just wanted to be at school!
On 09/05/2015 the aunt enquires whether the trial all going to hinge on the evidence of the foster carers. How true this becomes!
Interesting information on 12/05/2015:
I’m not sure what the trial rests on at the moment really. So far, the prosecution finished today (Tues). And the first of defence Barr’s started pm, will continue tomorrow am (WED). I’m still 6th on indictment (being 3rd and top before…). One of f/c’s in witness box at the moment, started yesterday (Mon).
How come that Michael is 6th on the indictment list dropping down from being in ‘top place’? This seems to be related to ‘The Stain’. Remember the stain on the sweater of Monica Lewinsky? What would you think about Bill Clinton if you were to hear that the sweater had been through the washing machine? This is a suitable comparison scenario to the ‘ridogulous’ shenanigans that ‘kick-started’ the criminal case. Police gained unsupervised access to Michael’s accommodation and removed two sets of child clothing. Apparently they also removed a ‘used condom’. Strangely the police claims to have found sperm on the children clothing – which had been washed. Equipped with this ‘pseudo-evidence’ the criminal case was started.
Let’s reflect on a few disclosures. Reportedly Norwich Social Workers hissed (out of earshot of any witnesses of course) at Marie: ‘You will never get your children back’. When Marie called Norwich police expressing her concerns that her children were brainwashed into making false allegations they – somewhat apologetically at first – said they could not do anything as it was flagged as a ‘child protection’ issue (this ‘card blanche’ underpins a lot of the shenanigans in the local cabals). When claiming that the DNA Match was not high enough the Social Worker stated a classic ‘inversion’: We are not messing with your children’s mind. When Marie and Joe settled in France Norwich officials made up allegations he broke her arm. They erroneously claimed to have jurisdiction of Luna and unlawfully removed the baby. When under high a court order they returned Luna at last they reportedly stated ominously: ‘You have not heard the last of us yet.’
With this kind of ‘irregularities galore’ it makes me wonder how sperm got onto those clothes? The court proceedings engaged a fanciful expert who ‘explained away’ the significance of the find (could be due to contamination in the washing machine) and the (non-)issue faded into insignificance. Had the ‘pseudo-evidence’ done its job in cranking up the pressure to start a criminal case? Did the timing have anything to do with the fact that Marie and Joe shortly before had given up on their fight for compensation regarding the unlawful removal of Luna through Norwich officials? They apparently gave up pursuing the claim when Norwich made heavy-handed threats that they would be made responsible for all legal costs of Norwich if they lost the case.
Comments about the first foster carer on 13/05/2015:
The first of the foster carers been questioned still. She seems to be ‘avoiding’ certain questions somehow, reverting to ___ notes, diaries ___’s done before. Wether it’s true or not. I’ve not been too impressed myself. But I’ll leave it up to my barrister and QC.
Comments about the second foster carer (and Michael’s QC!) on 15/05/2015:
There was 2nd f/c as witness. As far as I could tell ___ was lying through ___ teeth throughout, yet trying to make it sound good at same time. And my QC’s actually buying it. She’s trying to tell me differently, but I’ll just have to wait and see. There’s 2nd pair of f/c’s next week, starting Monday. So basically prosecution continuing.
On 22nd some reflections on the foster carers, Michael’s girls and life after trial if cleared:
But this week it’s been the foster carers, 2 pairs, husbands & wives. And I THINK I’m not the only one to think so, but they ALL lied. 3 of them actually wanted a screen around the witness box. This was a flexible 4-fold barrier covering 2 sides of the stand. Only 1 of them didn’t want it, the screen. And ___ lied. But it’s just a case of so far so good though really, still. Yes I’ve heard some more Crap. We all have, those of us there, suffering it. But I’m just TRYING to think of end result, 4 possible jobs on offer. and most importantly, normality. We not in now till Monday week, 1st June. As half-term next week (Whitsun?). So yet more agonising waiting. And apparently there’s to be another 27 witnesses for prosecution yet, including police. Before you ask, I do not know…. I got no idea.
On 05/06/2015 social worker witness reflections:
Been various witnesses giving evidence all week, including s/w on Thursday & Friday who most of the barristers tried hard to get much or any sense out of her, except mine. Mine managed to somehow actually get some sense out of this s/w! It was pretty sad. And hard going. Mind you, I not been in witness box yet, so…
Very interesting turn of events indicated on 26/06/2016 when Michael realised it is not compulsory to give evidence (why was that not made clear before???):
But prosecution mentioned finishing their bit sometime Monday. I’m not holding my breath though. Some jury members have complained about the length of it so far already, apparently. Judge did not say exactly what was said, but there’s been grievances about length of prosecution. I’ve recently found out though, that us defendants don’t actually need to give evidence if we don’t want to at all? I didn’t realise this, know this. I thought we just had to come forward in indictment order, say our bits, or answer questions rather. I just thought it was compulsory. BUT, not so. My QC said to wait till the others before me give their evidence, and we’d have a chat about my bit. As straight away I was in 2 minds whether to go forward or not? For couple of reasons at least. I’m concerned, too, about length of time taken so far. It’s been crazy. Plus I’m thinking of affording accommodation still, especially if this case does prolong? my Barrister said it should be over by August(!) or end of July. Again I’m not holding my breath, my own Barr or not. I think he knows I’m concerned though. I think everyone knows we all concerned. Except the judge. Who is not impartial, I’ve noticed. Since day 1. He’s been quite 1-sided. Plus I’m all too wary of how I might sound and come across to jury. Even though I got intermediary. It’s going to be up to me in the end I know. I do want to go forward still, but as I said, I can’t help but feel wary. My police interviews been read out to jury anyway, summing up my side of story, so I really am in 2 minds.
On 23/06/2015 Michael still was 90:10 sure that he would like to give testimony:
To let you know defence FINALLY got going today, Tuesday. I’m 6th (of 10) on indictment list. But as I only found out yesterday, we don’t actually have to come forward at all, it’s not compulsory. Which I didn’t know. So I been in 2 minds whether to or not. But my legals been filling me in as to what to expect. Basically expect the unexpected. And more. Much more. It could well be grilling time. Steaks well done…. Or probably burnt. Or set on fire. Anyway, my legals said, IF and a big IF I go forward, it could be Friday, or Monday. Just depends though. But I’m just trying to gear myself up to go forward at the moment. I want to more than not. But it’s our own choice in the end. I’m 90 – 10 on it so far.
On 30/06/2015 the aunt learns that Michael ‘changed his mind’ – partly due to a bruising experience with a different judge.
I didn’t give evidence after all. 2 of us haven’t. But, as said, yes my interviews were read out in full to the jury. And my QC said they both were quite strong, even under the strain and duress and very much outside comfort zone at the time. I’m certainly not expecting police to knock on door at any time. And we all stated more or less the same, without knowing, as we’re all hearing. But it was the judge from the family court hearing 4 years ago that didn’t believe me on the stand. He chose to believe when I touched on a brief personal note about Dad. Now I could have just made it up just to try get some sympathy, but not the case. The judge just didn’t believe anything else. But that was 4 years ago. Yes all paperwork on my side was read out, quite strong in QC’s mind, so thought better to let the papers speak volumes. Or try to.
I am wondering to what extent other people changed Michael’s mind? I am being told that Michael’s stutter was one factor that influenced the decision not to give evidence. I personally found Michael particularly credible due to his unpolished, slightly awkward social style (when many abusers hide behind a charismatic front). I can also relate to his background as I used to cycle a lot and also ran a marathon. A massive influence was the issue of ‘images’ referred to early on in the messenger thread. Some clues can be found in my earlier blogpost that included media report links:
Let’s look at a particular claim in more detail:
Sarah Elliott QC, mitigating for Black, said her client had been the victim of very serious domestic violence at the hands of Adams. “He was, and is, a very manipulative man,” she said. Elliott told the court that evidence was found on Rogers’ telephone suggesting he was a paedophile who exploited Black.
So what was this evidence found on Michael’s telephone suggesting he was a paedophile?
The reality is that whilst single and outside of a relationship Michael clicked on his phone on an advert for a site that was called ‘Slim women small tits’ i.e. the clue was in the title they were small breasted Women. Michael was threatened that this evidence would be put before the jury if he took the stand i.e. his legal team did everything to persuade him not to give evidence even though he fully wished to do so. Had this evidence been seen by the jury it may well have helped rather than hindered his case. I asked Michael to comment on this situation and he dutifully gave an account in his letter that I uploaded with my last blog post. Nothing at all to do with Paedophilia, Sarah Elliott!
Here are some more examples how the defendants were ‘taken for a ride’ by their legal representatives:
Did the prosecution describe Marie Black as “clearly a vulnerable, corrupted woman“? No – her own barrister Sarah Elliott QC did!
Isabella Forshall QC, for Adams, said he had no previous convictions for sexual offences and Black was “the common denominator between all the offences.” Reportedly Jason Adams legal representative also referred to him as ‘a nasty piece of work’ (or a similar derogatory phrase) on a day that Jason was not attending court.
Ann Cotcher QC said Rogers was a “naive” man who had sought to help Black and was not the instigator of sexual and physical abuse. Charming comments! I found Michael genuine, compassionate and forthright, and more insightful about the case than all ‘professionals’ combined.
Who needs enemies with friends (= legal representatives) like that?
“The case is the most harrowing it has been my misfortune to try,” said Judge Nicholas Coleman. He also said he had “had enough” of legal argument from her barrister and went at it both barrels.
I gathered that Judge Coleman actually took the ‘Double Jeopardy’ admission of Jason Adams of child cruelty (for which he had already spent one year in prison) and the coerced admission of the Nanny ‘There must have been abuse’ to direct the Jury that there has been abuse, and that their role is to identify who is guilty of the abuse. Naturally the parents of the children and Michael as Marie’s former partner would have the most frequent ‘mentions’ in the ‘make believe’ game so got sent down.
Are the ‘Norwich Three’ Michael Rogers, Marie Black and Jason Adams the victims of clandestine authority processes instigated by the ‘Forced Adoption & Care’ industry, a compromised Psychiatrist, inadequate legal representatives, and an unfair judge?
Serious researcher will find rich pickings when unpicking this pseudo-investigation. Budding script writers could turn this into a mainstream success like ‘Making a murderer’. Suggested title of the production: ‘Making a paedophile ring’.
PS: Today is ‘Mother’s Day’ (at least in the UK) so that I would like to dedicate this blog entry to the grieving mothers around the world who are victims of barbaric ‘Child Snatching’ practices.