If I was indeed guilty, and there was any actual evidence of anything I have been accused of lately, of course, it is highly likely that I would be serving a lengthy prison sentence by now.
Accusations have been flying around social media and Alt Media blogs for more than a year now, none of which have any basis in fact, and any visible evidence has been noticeably absent.
For example: making a YouTube video reading carefully selected snippets from an article taken from this site, manipulated to suit the purpose of said video, is not ‘evidence’ of anything, except maybe the obvious desperation of the narrator, and an intense desire to deflect from the actual facts.
“Evidence: broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as incircumstantial evidence.” WIKIPEDIA
Gossip, Innuendo, Rumour or baseless accusations, entirely constructed around fantasy or whisper campaigns conducted by means of Direct Messages on Twitter, are not ‘Evidence’ either.
Whenever I write about the North Wales Child Abuse scandal, to use only one example, I have been screamed at by my accuser to ‘look to Waterhouse’ for the ‘Evidence’.
I have stated previously my own feelings in regard to the failings of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal, not only as I believe it to have been a cover-up, but also if the original allegations had been investigated and reported correctly, the £13.8M spent on the Enquiry, could have been saved.
Nonetheless, I took the advice of my accuser and spent some time over the weekend reading through the 900+ pages of the ‘Lost in Care Report,’ as there were some things that to me, have simply never added up.
For example, on Page 408, Chapter 35:18, the following details can be found:
“11 former residents of Y Gwyngyll, between 1981 and 1986 made allegations to the police that they had been abused by identified members of the staff”…… “Of these, only two alleged that they had suffered ‘SEXUAL ABUSE,’….” One was a former boy resident identified as ‘D’ in Paragraph 33:70″
From the paragraphs above, it is noted that the witness’s credibility was attacked by Counsel with particular severity on the grounds, amongst others, that they had “been part of a conspiracy…. and both had appeared on television to do so.”
So, it would appear that the witnesses had been prominent in the media, where they had no doubt reinforced their earlier allegations to the police, which had the result of their credibility being questioned, with good reason, at the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal.
My question was, during the numerous interviews they had given to the Mainstream Media, did either of the witnesses ever deny that any ‘Sexual Abuse’ had taken place, which they had earlier reported to the police and the Tribunal?
I ask this, simply because following the article that appeared in the Daily Mirror in February 2000, Witness D, successfully sued the the editor of said newspaper, Piers Morgan for £10,000 for reporting that he was indeed, ‘Sexually Abused.’
Can you see my problem?
The credibility of many of the tribunal witnesses has been the subject of much discussion, both during and for years following Waterhouse, not only because some of their allegations were shown to have been impossible to have occurred.
Allegations were made against some people, that were not even employed at the time they were alleged to have been, actively ‘abusing’ children in their care.
Some of the allegations of course, were genuine, the convictions obtained have shown this to be the case, so are rightly, not subject to similar scrutiny.
From this website anyway.
It is my guess, that now ‘evidence’ from the enquiry has been presented here, which if you remember, was the preferred source with which to judge the honesty and credibility of Witness D, there will be a rapid about turn… I can guarantee that.