Blog entry 14th April 2021
Well, unsurprisingly one of the less reputable red-banner Sunday newspapers picked up on my last blog.
Rather than print a balanced article it declared outrage and scandal that a convicted prisoner dare speak out against sexual identity intolerance and discrimination. It takes no effort or skill to write a piece devoid of balance and designed to scandalize and tittilate. After all, to investigate and report all the facts of a case such as mine would take an open mind, a degree of professionalism and a great deal of tenacity. These are the qualities that define a true journalist to a common 'hack'.
Had the articles author looked at the issues relating to how the police and CPS achieved my conviction he would have discovered a significantly better story. If he had unbiasedly considered how evidence was falsified, misrepresented, withheld and still came to the same opinion then fair enough. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, as long as that opinion accounts for all the facts relating to it. Sadly the 'hack' in question was too idle and unprofessional to do such a thing.
As I stated in my earliest blogs I do fully understand that for Susan Kent's family my appeal campaign web-site will be an affront to all that seems right. However, I did not commit this murder and I have to fight using every avenue available to me to get the truth out there. I can prove that the police and CPS vastly exaggerated and misrepresented the DNA forensic match statistics at my trial. I can prove that they withheld evidence proving my alibi and continue to do so and, I can prove that they withheld evidence that disproves the claims they made regarding my computer usage.
Whilst the possibility that I may be wrongly convicted may be unpalatable to Susan Kent's family, it doesn't mean that it isn't true.
As the 'hack' for the newspaper chose to declare outrage at my raising the issue of intolerance and discrimination in respect of my sexual identity lets look at how the police and press have previously taken this approach with other cases, resulting in the pursuit of convictions at any cost regardless of the truth.
Until the mid-1990's anyone found to be homosexual, transsexual, kinky or a cross-dresser, and investigated for an offence (particularly if sexual in nature) would have this prominently raised in the investigation against them. This would be seized upon in press reports and see them labelled as perverts, weirdos', or sickos. Knowing how many in the British public believe all that they read the police quickly learned to use the media to convict people in the public opinion even before a trial had occurred.
This has never been better exemplified than by the case pursued against Mr Colin Stagg for the murder of Rachel Nickell. With the police's focus firmly upon Colin the press were quick to label him a bit of a loner. This was not enough for the police though, who knew that their case was weak.
A woman police sergeant was duly tasked to go undercover and trick Colin into a relationship with her. In the course of this immoral deception the police sergeant connived to entice Colin into discussing violent practices. Wanting to progress what he believed to be a genuine relationship Colin reciprocated, even though he had no prior tendencies in this aspect. Seizing upon this, the police duly leaked lurid details to the press leading to news reports labelling Colin the usual barrage of insulting characteristics.
Only one problem though, Colin was entirely innocent. Fortunately, by some miracle, the judge in Colin's trial saw through the police's duplicitous actions and threw the case against him out. Had this deception not been uncovered Colin would most likely have been convicted of a murder he did not commit. Then any attempt by him to clear his name or expose the injustice inflicted upon him would have been met with the kind of 'hack' journalism given in response to my last blog.
It is no longer acceptable for press stories to attack convicted prisoners with sexual identities if they are homosexual, trans-gender, or transsexual etc., so why is it still fair game to promote intolerance against a convicted prisoner who identifies as 'Kink' and is fighting to prove their innocence. This kind of low-level 'hack' journalism only serves to incite and promote intolerance and encourage internet trolls that it is acceptable to use internet forums to voice uninformed hatred and small mindedness.