How many cases have to fall apart before we start recognising the signs

How do the Me Too cases relate to the prosecution of Lucy Letby?

Anyone who was watching this week would have seen that the New York Court of Appeals overturned the latest in a string of convictions tied to the Me Too movement. In this post I will describe the similarities between several such cases, and conclude with the reason why I believe the proseuctions and appeals of people like neonatal nurse Lucy Letby and independant journalist Tommy Robinson demonstrate a similar pattern of police and prosecutorial misconduct and overreach.

Harris, Cosby and Weinstein

There are a number of similarities in each case that bear greater scrutiny and are, I believe, not coincidental.

First:

In each case the alleged sexual predator had close ties or a close relationship with key globalists involved in the Pandemic, Climate, mis/dis/mal-information and other interrelated narratives that have negatively affected the world during the last few years. Unsurprisingly, those relationships appeared to sour either around the time accusations became public, during or after their prosecution.

Rolf Harris had close ties with the British Royal Family. Harris was regularly hosted at Buckingham Palace, including almost daily for around two months in 2005 when he was granted a Royal Warrant to paint Queen Elizabeth II in commemoration of her 80^th birthday. Harris was even awarded an Order of the British Empire (OBE) during 2006. Close friend to Harris at the time, King Charles, continues to have a close relationship with globalist WEF leaders Schwab and Gates.

Bill Cosby had a close relationship with the Clintons, famously giving a celebrity endorsement for Clinton during her 2000 Senate campaign and being hosted at the White House by then-President Bill Clinton and years earlier by George W. and Laura Bush.

It should also be noted that when Prince Andrew needed to defend the sexual assault accusations of Epstein-trafficked teen Virginia Roberts, he went directly to Cosby’s defence lawyer.

Harvey Weinstein had close ties to the wife of America’s 42^nd president and 67^th Secretary of State during the Obama Administration, Hilary Clinton. Like King Charles, the Clinton’s regularly attend the WEF conference at Davos and have a close working relationship with Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates.

Weinstein also had ties to the Royal Family, having been awarded an Honorary Commander of the British Empire (CBE) in 2004 and hosted at both Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle during the early 2000’s - including having been invited, along with Jeffrey Epstein, to Princess Beatrice’s 18^th Birthday Party.

Second:

In each case the alleged sexual predator was convicted of the historic sexual abuse of young women in what was hailed as a victory for the Me Too movement. In each case the alleged incidents were said to have occurred at least thirteen and, in the case of Harris, nearly fifty years prior. Further, a reductionist view could describe the prosecution evidence in each case as little more than ‘he said, she said’.

Rolf Harris was convicted in 2014 of twelve counts of indecent assault on four female victims who were between the ages of eight and fifteen during the 1960s-1980s when the alleged incidents occurred. He was sentenced to imprisonment for five years and nine months.

Bill Cosby had his first prosecution end in mistrial during 2017, but was convicted at retrial during 2018 of three counts of indecent assault that were alleged to have occurred during 2004. He was sentenced to three to ten years in State Prison and fined $25,000 plus the costs of his prosecution, amounting to $43,611.

Harvey Weinstein was convicted in New York during 2020 of having sexually assaulting a former production assistant in 2006, and raping an aspiring actress in 2013. He was given 23 years imprisonment for the New York convictions. In 2023 he was also convicted in a Californian court of the rape of an Italian model and actress at a Beverly Hills hotel in 2013. He was given a further 16 years imprisonment for the Californian conviction.

Third:

In each case the media headlines of the day appeared to be controlled or were manipulated - focusing on the sensational claims of the prosecutors to the almost total exclusion of any evidence revealed by the defence that supported the innocence of the accused. Elicited evidence that tended to demonstrate that either the accused had not been present or had not done the detestable acts they stood accused of or that called the veracity of the accusers into question was largely ignored by the mainstream media. It was often also treated as demonstrative of the accused’s diabolical ‘lack of remorse’ by the Court at sentencing.

Rolf Harris was unable to face some of his accusers because even though they were now in their 40s, 50s and 60s, their testimony was led from behind a curtain. Some of those testifying against him were not even people who Harris stood accused of assaulting. For example, one woman gave testimony of highly prejudicial and unsubstantiated allegations that could only be described as bad character or propensity evidence¹. Her testimony described an incident she said occurred more than thirty years earlier outside the UK and outside the period where such incidents could be prosecuted here. She also gave testimony of ongoing incidents with Harris well into her own adulthood, and admitted holidaying and having sexual encounters with him until she was in her late 20s. She claimed all such incidents, even those where she was an adult and there was every reason to believe she had voluntarily gone with him, were examples of his sexual abuse of her. Other prosecution witnesses were also revealed during cross examination by the defence to have possibly had relationships or sexual contact with Harris when they were adults which, as Ann McElhinney rightly points out, seems incredible for anyone to do with their alleged rapist. Another complainant, Karen Gardner, alleged Harris assaulted her three times in full view of others in a packed studio when she was 16 yet no other person was able to substantiate her allegations and Harris was acquitted of ever harming her. Several prosecution witnesses admitted to having substance abuse issues during their teens and either during or after the period of their alleged encounter with Harris.

However, Harris’ defence team engaged a Special Investigator, William Merrit, during his appeal who in turn had a team of private investigators that unearthed considerable evidence in the celebrity artist’s defence. They describe the evidence led at trial by the third of these complainants as sufficiently unstable to be considered unsafe. This woman claimed Harris had assaulted her on a Green in Cambridge, however she was unclear as to when and couldn’t say for sure on which Green the incident had occurred. She claimed Rolf assaulted her when she was 13 or 14 and was earning pocket money by waitressing for BBC's It's A Knockout. When it was shown that Rolf had never appeared on It's A Knockout but had appeared on ITV's Star Games three years later, her age suddenly changed, her employer suddenly changed, the venue suddenly changed - and the judge allowed all this while giving no adjournment to afford the defence an opportunity to investigate her drastically changed evidence.

Harvey Weinstein stood accused both in the court of public opinion, and the court of law. Well known actresses like Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan sprung forth from the woodwork and became heavily involved in activism against Weinstein primarily because they blamed him for forestalling their acting careers - Judd with Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, and McGowan who had waited two decades to make her Me Too claim in 2017 that Weinstein ‘stole her career’ by allegedly raping her at the Sundance Film Festival in 1997. Of course, McGowan’s stolen career claim completely ignores the countless tv series and movies she appeared in during that 20 year stolen period, including no less than 112 episodes of the tv series Charmed for which she reportedly received up to $102,000 per episode, 6 episodes of Chosen and 5 episodes of Nip/Tuck. The rest of us should be so lucky.

Weinstein’s defence team repeatedly extracted admissions from his accusers that tended to contradict the accusations of sexual assault and claims of being afraid of him. Journalist Ann McElhinney (see video below) attended each day of the Weinstein trial and recently had this to say:

“What was amazing to me and super-depressing was that the court room was packed with journalists from all over the world. We had to get up at four o’clock in the morning and stand in the cold... and anyway. So we went in and the prosecution would ask all of these questions of the women and ‘Oh my god and I cried and he did that’ and kinds of salacious, pornographic material.

But then the defence would stand up and they would ask something and you’d go ‘oh my god!’. And the thing that I noticed, and it was almost a parody. All of the journalists stopped typing. They were all going feverishly but they literally put their pens down and stopped writing. And what the [defence] were bringing up were the most extraordinary pieces of information that are really newsworthy... the prosecution were who they covered, they didn’t cover the defence... but here’s what the defence brought out... Here’s the question...

If you were raped do you think you would write to your rapist afterwards and say ‘I’d love you to meet my mother’?

Do you think you would write to your rapist hundreds of emails saying ‘you mean more to me than my father’?

Would you write to your rapist the day after you were raped and say ‘I’d love to go to London. Can you pay for me to go to London? And then go to London and when you’re in London, get in touch with your rapist and say ‘Oh my god I just heard that you’re coming to London. I want to change my flight so that I’m here when you’re in London’

That shit put him in prison!”

Fourth:

In each case, some or all of the convictions have now been overturned. In every case there was evidence of the use of bad character or propensity evidence from women who were not one of those whose accusations were being prosecuted, which can only have been intended to taint the jury and bias them against a defendant in circumstances where the prosecution were relying on little more than testimony that amounted to “He did it!”. In two cases it is now a matter of fact that judges erred when they allowed this propensity testimony. In the other we can say that at best, prosecutors relied on disaffirmance to unlawfully secure a conviction.

Rolf Harris after having been acquitted of the accusations of one accuser during the original trial, had the conviction relating to the accusation of another overturned in 2017 when her parents came forward to say that there was no way their daughter was in Portsmouth where she claimed to be at the time she alleged Harris sexually assaulted her. Harris had also maintained he was not at the place where she alleged the incident occurred - “I was not believed and she was. I have served a nine-month prison sentence based on her word”. The overturning of this conviction was reported briefly, with mainstream media articles primarily focusing on the fact that the accusations of three of the original five accusers still stood. The only evidence I could find of this was a Guardian article, a BBC article and a single sentence in Harris’ Wikipedia page all acknowledging this single conviction had been overturned in 2017 on grounds that it was clearly unsafe. The Court of Appeal was quoted as having assured us that there was no reason to believe there were issues with the remaining three complainants or the convictions secured based solely on their testimony, and the Justices refused Harris permission to appeal these on any grounds. But, and as we have already seen, the Cambridge Green accuser’s testimony was erratic and entirely questionable. There is little doubt that on appeal her convictions might also have fallen. Harris was released from prison after three years and died of cancer not long after.

Bill Cosby was released from prison in 2021 when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed his convictions for the alleged drugging and rape of complainant and social activist provocateur Andrea Constand. The primary reason for Cosby’s acquittal was that the then District Attorney of Montgomery County had made assurances to Cosby that he would not be prosecuted based on Constand’s allegations, which induced Cosby to make certain statements during depositions in a separate lawsuit that were used as the basis to re-enliven the prosecution. It could be said that the only way to bring a prosecution against Cosby ended up being entrapment, whether it came about coincidentally, unintentionally or, potentially more likely, was the intentional conclusion to a deliberate long game - what two Justices specifically called a coercive bait-and-switch. Cosby had served three of a ten year sentence at the time his convictions were overturned and he was released from custody. While Constand and others have or seek to profit from Cosby’s prosecution and incarceration (Constand received $3.38mil), to date, Cosby has not been charged with any other offences arising out of the 68 Me Too complainants who publicly flag-waved their intention to ride on Constand’s coat-tails. While one academic claimed women have been coming forward for decades to accuse Cosby, the article he links to in order to support this erroneous assertion is a mainstream media article best described as a Me Too feminist hit-piece wherein the journalist publicly sought out and brought together women willing to have their photo taken on a seat as they made sensational accusations against Cosby. Accusations that the journalists present almost as tried and certain fact without ever actually investigating whether there was even any connection between the accuser and Cosby at the time of the alleged incident.

Harvey Weinstein received word this week that his appeal of the New York convictions had been successful. A majority of the Court ruled that the trial judge erred when he allowed testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against other women who were not the complainants of the crimes he had been charged with. In other words, the New York Court of Appeals found that bad character or propensity evidence had tainted his prosecution. The appeal judges also found that the prosecution had been allowed to cross examine Weinstein in an aggressive manner that was highly prejudicial. To put it plainly, in reading between the lines it became apparent to me that the case against him had been weak and circumstantial and the only way the prosecution and Court could achieve conviction had been to rig the system against him... in effect, to set him up. While Weinstein still awaits his day in court to appeal the Californian conviction, many on both sides already predict that appeal will go in his favour as well.

In Conclusion

Please don’t assume that I believe Harris, Cosby or Weinstein are entirely innocent or virtuous men. Rather, my general position would be that they are all questionable and detestable men who, while I can’t prove it, very likely used their celebrity to get a leg over on young women and no doubt on more than one occasion. They all mingled with other questionable and detestable people who are notorious, rightly or wrongly, and who figure in several of the worst events of recent history and at least the last several decades. In each case throngs of women rose up and claimed victim status, many of whom had little or no connection to the accused but all wanting their moment of attention in the spotlight. For what it is worth, it does seem like each fell out of favour with their rich globalist masters and was, for want of a better description, abandoned after first being pushed under the proverbial bus.

The key point I am trying to make is that there is a pattern to these prosecutions.

In his report and book investigating Rolf Harris’ convictions, Merrit describes that pattern:

1. There have been numerous prosecutions of historic sexual offences where

2. Prosecutors and police protect accusers identities but

3. Never protect the innocent or falsely accused

4. Where accusers are hailed as victims even before any investigation is done, and

5. Defendants are guilty even before they are ever charged.

6. Once convicted, new charges that are more of the same are strategically timed to shake off the appeal that everyone understands is in hand, and

7. Make the accused too busy to think about their appeal, even though

8. their conviction was secured with low quality evidence, and

9. It is clear that the accused was set up.

I have broken Merrit’s description into nine separate elements. I believe this process has been repeated over and over during these Me Too era trials. However, I think there is one element missing from Merrit’s process that, when we consider the average time from charge to trial for the three accused was four years, was observed in each case:

10. Police and prosecutors drag out the discovery and pretrial phases in order to maximise the financial cost for the defendant and increase the chances of a plea bargain.

I also believe that, including my additional element, this is the same process we have and continue to see playing out, minus the sexual angle, for Lucy Letby.

A process very similar to that which Tommy Robinson has come to describe as Lawfare.

1. In the UK, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) permits admission of bad character or propensity evidence where it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the prosecution and defence. For example, in R v Mitchell [2016] UKSC 55 the prosecution was allowed to introduce witness testimony that the defendant had threatened or attacked seven people with a knife prior to the incident that resulted in the death she stood accused of, even though she had not previously been prosecuted or convicted of any crimes. This propensity evidence was used to support the prosecution’s allegation that the incident the defendant stood accused of was not self defence as she claimed, and was instrumental in securing conviction. However, on appeal the conviction was overturned because the court failed to instruct jurors they had to scrutinise bad character allegations as closely as the actual crime being prosecuted and be certain these previously unheard events had taken place before embarking on consideration of whether they showed propensity. Courts in other jurisdictions disallow such propensity evidence during trial as it can unfairly bias the jury, and the CJA 2003 provides general discretion to judges to exclude if its admission would be unfair, which would be appropriate in a case like Harris’ where there were a large number of disputed points between the parties. However, in the UK such exclusion almost never occurs.