Backgrounds of the ‘Norwich Three’


Some people asked me why I consider the conviction of the ‘Norwich Three’ extremely unsafe. I would like to therefore delve into the backgrounds of Marie Black, Jason Adams and Michael Rogers.

Marie Black

When I visited Michael Rogers at HMP Isle of Wight he referred to Marie as ‘very unlucky’.

A few days after birth she caught a cold from her older sister and has suffered bouts of asthma and ill health ever since including pelvis problems. Just before her 2nd birthday she received the mandatory ‘measles’ injection which is meant to stimulate production of anti-bodies. In her case however she actually developed measles leading to a ‘near death’ experience. Her face went blue and her father saved her through resuscitation in the minutes before the ambulance arrived.

At home Marie was the quiet one compared to her older sister but liked dancing and had many friends. She was known as kind and altruistic e.g. many times staying behind to help the teacher. Grades at school reportedly were above average and work discipline good.

Disaster struck at age 12 when an 18 year old serial abuser with criminal convictions started to target Marie having been spurned and fought off by Marie’s older sister. He lived within 250 yard of the family home in a small town with a 10k population and used ‘grooming’ as well as ‘intimidation’ to control and sexually assault Marie. The serial abuser was a loner living with his mother and seemingly abused a string of young girls. He told Marie that he had killed a girl who was found with lethal head injuries in a field (nobody convicted). Another girl in the town disappeared around the time – only a bicycle left. A friend of the next victim was knifed by the abuser (strangely no court case).

The abuser to some extent infiltrated Marie’s circle of friends creating opportunities to ‘walk her home’ as he would pass her house. Later he would come to the school, climb under a fence and ‘abduct’ Marie – teachers would phone her parents saying despairingly ‘Marie is gone’. Her attendance record and grades deteriorated. When the parents challenged the abuser’s mother about Marie’s whereabouts she would lie for him e.g. when her son had actually manipulated her into his room.

One evening there was a local festivity and friends requested permission for Marie to join them. An hour later she was gone. Dozens of people including police commenced a frantic search. Her older sister found her after some hours all muddied and completely traumatised. Her mother collected the stained clothing and urged police to conduct DNA tests. Local police refused claiming ‘these clothes are too dirty’ and implied that Marie’s relationship with this adult was a ‘life style choice’ referring to the abuser in police notes – rather cynically – as ‘her boyfriend’. Rotherham minus 20 years – with a white perpetrator shielded by police?

At times the abuser would stand in the drive opposite and shout Marie’s name. I have been told that he engaged in ‘self-harming’ behaviour hitting his head against a wall (mental health issues due to neglect and abuse in early childhood perhaps?). Marie’s father was a successful team leader in a reputable insurance company. However his attempts to challenge the perpetrator were met with verbal and physical aggression leading to a breakdown. The mother from an entrepreneurial and resourceful family was also at her wits end.

Over a 12 months period the family’s despair increased to the point that they moved in secret – as suggested by the ‘helpful’ (?) local police – some 17 miles. Within days the abuser turned up at the new school, ‘befriended’ pupils and resumed stalking. By that time Marie had clocked that she had to stay absolutely clear of this guy. When she spotted him outside her new home she called local police who acted promptly, chased the abuser across a field and took a statement from Marie. It was apparently the most shocking statement this police officer had ever taken. This upright officer was incredibly angry that his colleagues down the road had ‘let down’ Marie. However as her mother had dumped the bag of stained clothes before the move there was no physical proof and the abuser only got a few weeks ‘community service’. To ward off any future stalking a police officer accompanied Marie on the way to school leading to bullying by some. Joe Ollis however, a boy of her own age who had just lost his dad, and Marie comforted each other leading to a 4 year relationship towards the end of which Marie delivered a boy (who is said to be very intelligent)…

Jason Adams

Jason was adopted just after birth joining his older brother who had been adopted from different biological parents. Their parents were loving but extremely strict resorting to ‘chastisement’ with a belt at times. In the 1970’ies this was considered acceptable whereas nowadays it may be considered abuse in the UK (cultural and generational issues open to idiosyncratic interpretation that result in many non-UK children being taken into ‘Forced Adoption’). Jason loved his parents very much and was distraught when his father died. After school Jason trained as a Draughtsman. After losing a long-held job due to redundancy he took up roles such as Hotel Night Manager and Hospital Cleaner. His first marriage lasted three years without off-spring. On the rebound he got together with a close friend of his ex-wife who seemingly wanted a baby – but no partner. The next relationship resulted from his response to an advert of a young mother 10 years his junior where he fathered a boy and three girls …

Michael Rogers

When Michael was born his father had been wheelchair bound due to an accident for 4 years. Caring for family members was natural for him. I found Michael socially shy – growing up with a disabled father was probably not easy. He worked as a bus driver for most of his life. His first marriage resulted in two daughters who he was seeing regularly following divorce. The next relationship which only lasted 16 months resulted from his response to an advert of a young mother. Her previous partner had received a custodial sentence for assaulting her on two occasions 5 years apart and one of their children once. During the relationship Michael acted as an Intervener in a court case where he observed a controversial Psychiatrist giving very contradictory evidence…


So what we have got here are three vulnerable individuals who had a difficult start in life. All three claim that they are innocent. Jason wrote a Liberty poem that I uploaded with this blog post.

I agree with many philosophers and humanists that society should be judged by the way the most vulnerable are treated. In the UK persecution of the poorest and most vulnerable has seemingly become institutionalised.

A fellow inmate of Marie at Bronzefield prison became 71-year old Teresa Kirk who was sent down 6 months for ‘Contempt of Court’ by Mr Justice Newton a judge at the secretive Court of Protection, for organising  a Care Home place for an elderly man in his native country Portugal:

The appeal judges heard that Mrs Kirk, who lives in Brighton, had experienced problems getting legal aid to mount an appeal and that a barrister, the appropriately named Colin Challenger, of Lamb Chambers in London, had volunteered to represented her for free:

Due to the insane ‘secrecy rules’ (that seem to shield mafia-like organisational structures) we need to consult foreign media to find out that the older gentlemen – is actually her brother:

The Court of Protection was set up under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to give social workers and lawyers the power to take over the lives of people, most of them elderly, who are ruled not to be capable of looking after their own affairs. The court’s decisions override any that the person’s relatives have decided, even if they have power of attorney, like Mrs Kirk has over her brother’s affairs.

Former Airline Pilot Len Lawrence who alerted me to the case of Ms Kirk was poisoned by Organophosphates and then persecuted by his wife, Psychiatrists, Solicitors, Barristers and Court of Protection (Racket) Judges:

Who introduced the Court of Protection? Lord Falconer! He also pushed for legalisation to permit ‘Assisted Suicide’ which would creep towards ‘Euthanasia’ – especially in the power of Public Sector representatives who want to ‘cut costs’. Chillingly he appears in a document that lists adherents of a destructive occult ideology (alongside fellow Labour politicians Lord Peter Goldsmith, Peter Mandelson, Peter Hain, Charles Clarke, Ruth Kelly, Alan Johnson, Ruth Kelly and Paul Boeteng). Some of his background is detailed below alongside the ghastly introduction of ‘Adoption Targets’ by Tony Blair that instated state sponsored ‘Child Trafficking’ with generous ‘per head snatched’ bonus payments:

In the case of the Guildford couple Karrissa and Richard who were falsely accused of child abuse when an ‘expert’ overlooked Von Willebrand disease, Lord Falconer lambasted the handling of this particular case proceeding but saw no need to challenge the whole unfair legal situation.

Surrey County Council was threatened with losing their Child Services responsibilities due to poor performance.

Forced Adoption has become a £2 Billion growth industry. A foster care company started in the early 00s by two former foster carers was sold 10 years later for £130 Million, and quickly doubled in value.

The Children’s Act (1989) gave Social Workers increased responsibility and power to ‘investigate’ child abuse and neglect. However they do not have the training and facilities to properly carry out investigative work. Instead they tend to take the ‘easy route’ commissioning ‘Hired Gun’ experts to testify what they like to hear, or take matters into their own hands. The consequences can be devastating as outlined in a commentary document on the intriguing website of Chris Salters Solicitors:

It is a common practice where children are taken into care because of physical violence or neglect with legal proceedings pending for social services to raise the suspicion of sexual abuse. As it is assumed that children will not have disclosed this and may be inhibited through circumstance, foster carers work closely with social workers and are briefed to be on the look out for signs. Diaries are a standard way of recording ‘evidence’, though in practice what is recorded may be inadvertently heavily influenced by leading questions and suspicions relayed from the briefings of social services.

By the time the first ‘disclosure’ was recorded, X, not yet three, had been out of the family for three months. This already poses questions of whether what she was alleged to have disclosed – was continuous memory – since children of this age do not reliably retain episodic memory for more than a few weeks at most. Furthermore, whatever X thought of Y prior to going into care, there was no doubt that in the eyes of the authorities he was the chief suspect. He had already been charged with a <crime> (of which he was eventually acquitted). Even if X was not persuaded in her own mind at this stage, there is little doubt that the image of him as a ‘very bad man’ would have been conveyed to her by those around her by the time of the allegation. So at this stage two foundations for creating false evidence have been laid. One is the time lag, the other stereotype induction – a needy child acceding to adult influence as to who to make claims against. When she was interviewed by the police officer in November, she was asked verbally and demonstrably whether Y had touched her indecently. Her previous apparent linguistic fluency appeared to have deserted her and she shook her head at all suggestions.

Though the officer closed the case, it may be assumed that social workers were far from reassured. Not only had they the evidence from the foster carer, it is also unlikely that they accepted the denial as settling the issue.

The reason for this common attitude among child abuse professionals is rooted, as the subsequent history of the case would demonstrate, in the theoretical tenets of the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) or its many variants.

The CSAAS predicts that abuse disclosure by young children is frequently delayed, but that it can be indicated by later behavioural symptoms though these are not necessarily specific to sexual abuse. Through helping the child to disclose, a partial disclosure may be followed by denial. After this more strenuous efforts need to be made to break down the emotional and conscious memory barriers to ‘excavate’ the presumed events.

Various ploys and props are utilised in pursuit and the process may be termed ‘non-directive play therapy’ or ‘direct work’. During this process the child and worker develop a bond with the aim of creating a narrative about the child’s past fished from the hidden recesses of memory.’

We do not know if such work was carried out with X. However when she was sent for a ‘behavioural assessment’ to a psychiatrist and family therapist she was able – without prompting – to use dolls to demonstrate what Y allegedly did.

This kind of disclosure work – whether with ‘anatomical dolls’ or off the shelf toys – has a long history in creating unreliable claims. Young children are particularly vulnerable and may not be able to distinguish between experience and directed fantasy play.

Developmentally it is questionable whether very young children are able to translate past autobiographical experience into a demonstration with symbolic objects – or ‘re-enactments’.

But the CSAAS proponents think this may be the only way that young children feel able to disclose. Furthermore in the assessment exchange, reported as being verbatim, the child spontaneously volunteered details of seeing Y’s ‘willy’ and him hurting her bottom.

On the face of it we have no reason to disbelieve the therapists’ reports of the spontaneity and their surprise. However it might be thought odd that the child suddenly decided to embark on this disclosure and re-enactment, given she had previously denied any touching and that the alleged events were by this time at least seven months distant.

But without knowing whether, in fact, she had been prepared for this encounter by others, there is a revealing phrase in her ‘disclosure’ that ought to have given pause for doubt as to whether she was describing the events alleged. After placing the dolls on top of each other the doctor asked her what she did next. Her reply was “I went to the toilet. I needed to go to the toilet. My bottom was sore.” This is curious – the use of modal language – ‘needed to go’ is unusual in young children especially those with delayed language abilities such as X. But that deficiency need not unduly concern us – maybe this was a gist and not a truly verbatim recording. What is of concern is that she remembered needing to go to the toilet at all. At two toileting is a function that rarely if ever attaches to a robust memory trace – we are all – mercifully – protected from recall of the indignities of this natural phase of development by the lack of inhibition at the time and ‘infantile amnesia’ which wipes out, or rather fails to lay, enduring memory traces of incidents of bodily functions. So the phrase ‘needed to go to the toilet’ immediately sounds a warning as to whether this child is demonstrating genuine recall of the alleged events –or rather whether she has been subjected to a learning process in the recent past as to what satisfies adults in authority when they probe her current state and past life.

Another telltale indication of this is the fact that she ‘held her bottom’ – echoing the demonstration of the police officer when quizzing her as to whether Y had touched her. Having failed that interview, she may well have begun to learn that what adults want is confirmation of what is suggested – and indeed at her interview with the assessors she was duly showered with praise, which Dr Z accepted may have re-enforced the notion that giving an account of abuse was a good thing.

The assessors said they were surprised by the spontaneous disclosure when engaging in an ordinary conversation about family life. They also appear to have claimed not to have known about the previous negative police interview. This is very surprising, if true.

The clinic concluded the child had been sexually abused. But no move to formally interview the child took place until four months later. Why the extra delay? – it could only further undermine or compromise the evidence from the child. Was there more preparatory work needed?

The above could be considered ‘Alternative Theory 1’ – perhaps rather likely given that Children’s Services at Norfolk County Council acted illegally in ‘kidnapping’ Luna and have yet again received an inadequate OFSTED assessment:

‘They said the judgement of some social workers was “not sharp enough” and some were “too quick to accept at face value what children or adults say”, with analysis “not sophisticated enough in weighing the child or young person’s wishes and feelings against all the other information gathered in assessments.’




One thought on “Backgrounds of the ‘Norwich Three’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s