Monday, 3 September 2018

Four Days Before Christmas, 2017 - Part 2

The Letter of Claim alleged that the Plaintiff had been indulging in sexual misconduct with children (including his own), ran a network for this within a religious cult, covertly disguised as a Christian church, and that he was a predator of children (both his own and others), engaging in bribery and corruption to cover up his misdeeds.

The following pages contained scanned images of the alleged defamatory material. 

The “first matter complained of” was a screenshot of the “Contact Us” form entry. The name “Marion Evans” had been entered, together with the following email address, “”, and a telephone number that started with 1300.

Inside the Contact Us enquiry box a few sentences were typed, in which the author threatened to expose the Plaintiff’s alleged sexual misconduct. The author stated their aim was to raise awareness of the situation, within the local community. The author claimed that the Plaintiff’s children had confided in a friend about their father’s behaviour. The author referred to the Plaintiff as a “predator” and a “pædophile hunter” who was targeting children in the community and claimed the Plaintiff would be exposed and stopped.

The entry was grammatically incorrect, with spelling mistakes (the wrong “there” had been used, it should have been “their”), poor paragraph composition and a reference to “incestuous pædophile hunters.” It was very weird.

The “second matter complained of” was set out over the next few pages and comprised scanned images of the material that had allegedly been sent in the post to neighbours of the Plaintiff.

There was a heading that was addressed to residents of an Australian street, asking if they knew their neighbours. Beneath the heading was a head and shoulders shot of the Plaintiff, with a warning triangle above it and the word, “DANGER”. Beside the picture was the Plaintiff’s name with the word,“PÆDOPHILE”, beneath it.

Next, was the name of my blog. This blog. Only it wasn’t the actual name as I had named it, it had been bastardised. Instead of, “Exclusive Brethren – Lies, Bribery & Deceit”, it read:

“Exclusive Brethren (Cult) – Incest, Paedophilia, Lies, Bribery and Deceit”

The additional words, “(Cult) – Incest, Paedophilia”, don’t, and never have, formed part of my blog title.

Thinking that my blog may have been hacked, I typed my blog name into the address bar of my computer and saw with relief that my blog was as I had named it; there was no evidence that it had been meddled with.

Next, was a very poor quality, grainy picture of what looked like a residential property. The caption alluded to this particular property being a venue for incest and child molestation.

Underneath the image was text that was similar to that which had been entered into the Contact Us form. Again, the phrase “Pædophile hunters” was used. Again, the content was grammatically incorrect. Again, the author seemed to be wanting to raise awareness in the community about who was living in the house.  The author made it clear that they (and seemingly the community too) did not want pædophiles in the vicinity. The author wrongly spelt the word “amongst”; instead, the letters the author typed spelt “amounst”.

This was not my work. I was indignant that the Plaintiff would think I had such a poor command of the English language.

The next three pages included an article by Michael Bachelard of the Sydney Morning Herald, it appeared to have been copied and pasted directly from the internet. It was headed:

“Potential witness in Exclusive Brethren sex abuse case paid to remain silent”

I knew of this article and had read it when it was first published. The above link had been pasted in various Facebook groups by Facebook-users, including me, in order to raise awareness.

The next page was headed:

“Unbelievable cruelty by a group who profess to be Christian.”

There was a picture of my mother and me together. The picture was taken when our family had found Mum in a hospital in Australia, in 2009; it features in Part 4 of this blog.

My blog address and the introduction to my blog had been copied and pasted into the document and I noticed that my blog address was not suffixed with “.uk”, as it would have been if I had copied and pasted it from the computer address bar, here, in England. Instead, it had another country’s suffix.

At the end of the document, the author of this material appeared to threaten that further material like this may be circulated at some future point

So that was it. I was accused of defaming someone. I had done nothing of the kind; I was totally innocent.

I felt angry and upset to be accused of this, but I also I felt very uncomfortable about what I had read. There was something odd about the author’s text composition; something strange about the naïve, almost childlike wording they had used.

Of course, the author may have deliberately written in such a manner in order to distract the reader and conceal the author’s identity, but my gut-feeling was, and still is, that this is the author's actual writing style. Why did the author use the words “pædophile hunter”? It didn’t make sense if they were implying that the Plaintiff was a child molester. A pædophile and a pædophile hunter were completely different. Who, and where was this person who had written this? It was glaringly obvious from the alleged defamatory text alone, that this was not my handiwork. Surely, if an expert compared the way I write with the way this was written, they would have drawn the conclusion that I was not the author of this material. In any case, doing something like this is simply not my style; I have written publicly about the Exclusive Brethren and my experience at their hands, but have only ever written factually, verifiable with a wealth of evidence.

........Tomorrow: Detailed timeline, which illustrates how quickly action was taken against me, with NO EVIDENCE.

No comments:

Post a Comment