|
My Questions for Geoffrey Rivlin’s Polygraph test
Hello Mr. GRivlin. Heard nothing from you. You appear to be adopting the
method of ignoring awkward questions in the hope that they will go away by
themselves (if kept waiting long enough). In order to assist you I will pose
just a few of some of the basic questions which you will of course be
expected to answer when attached to the polygraph machine.
(1)
Who are you? What is your real name? Do you have a birth certificate? Where
have you come from?
(2)
Why were you so desperate to leave the Leeds Circuit? Why were you so
unpopular on that Circuit? Some of your ex-colleagues have made certain
serious allegations against you regarding your character and
modus operandi
in the courts.
(3)
With respect to my case did you approach the CPS to ask for this case and
offering them an assured conviction, or did they approach you and offer you
my case in return for your assurance of conviction?
(4)
On what date exactly were you appointed to be my Prosecutor and do you have
any correspondence in connection with this appointment?
(5)
How is it that the CPS appointed a Leeds Circuit Prosecutor to prosecute an
Old Bailey case which had been transferred to the North-Eastern Circuit? Had
you previously prosecuted any person on the North-Eastern Circuit? Did you
make arrangements to transfer over to the North-Eastern Circuit through the
then senior judge on that circuit, the sister of Judge Stroyan? Did you know
that Stroyan and his sister had been obliged to supply the CPS with the same
guarantee of my conviction as you were asked to supply?
(6)
Did you ever go to Middlesbrough to meet up with Stroyan and/or his sister
before my trial and what “arrangements” were made between you to ensure my
conviction? Would you now agree that these meetings (which are in fact a
matter of record) are proof of the conspiracy between you and Stroyan and
his sister (and the CPS) of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?
(7)
At what point was the matter of the shorthand writers discussed - was it
during this pre-trial conference?
(8)
Is it true that that Teesside Court administration protested that there was
no need for you to bring your own shorthand writers from Leeds to record my
case? Your insistence on this was an implied insult to the efficiency and
honesty of the long-standing official Teesside Court shorthand writers. You
won the day and my Old Bailey trial was re-opened at Teesside with a
Middlesbrough judge and a Leeds Prosecutor. This was a very unusual
situation which caused much comment, some of which came back to me.
(9)
Would you now agree that, with the benefit of hindsight, it is now quite
obvious to all that when you travelled from Leeds to Teesside, bringing your
own private group of shorthand writers with you, the pre-planning of your
conspiracy to convict me at all costs is now obvious? Unless you have
another explanation for having to export certain shorthand writers from the
Leeds Circuit to the North-East Circuit in the sure knowledge that you would
then be in a position to add, delete, alter, and totally forge a false
official record of my trial deliberately designed to deceive the High Court
Appeal judges to whom I would surely be complaining if wrongfully convicted.
The mind boggles.
(10) Why were you carrying a copy of the Penguin book
The Fall of Scotland Yard
amongst your trial papers? This was seen by the Metropolitan Police case
officers who were in close proximity to you during the trial. Did you know
that this book being produced at the Old Bailey trial, and brought to the
notice of the jury in various ways, directly caused the abandonment of that
trial at a late stage and when I was on the point of winning my case? Were
you aware that the Old Bailey judge read this book on my invitation, and
that in fact copies of this book had been found in the Jury Room and he
abandoned the trial? The judge’s comments added to my letter of complaint to
Penguin books resulted in Penguin seizing back all the books, particularly
the last 30,000 print run prepared especially for my trial and distributed
all round London. These books were then pulped and the authors placed on the
Penguin black-list, which meant that their work would never ever be accepted
by Penguin and its associated companies again. As a result of that book
being republished and used to flood the Old Bailey area, this meant that my
trial was abandoned at a cost to the public purse of £3 million, and I was
obliged to spend a further year in prison on remand while attempts were made
to find a High Court judge on the South Wales Circuit who would agree to
conduct my trial. The South Wales Circuit was chosen because it was the
furthest away from the Old Bailey. Were you aware of this background, and if
so why were you openly referring to a copy of this same book during my
trial?
(11) As the appointed Prosecutor you obviously had access to my Court
papers, which had been sent up to Middlesbrough by the Old Bailey after the
appointment of Stroyan. If so you must surely have noticed the very
important note attached to the front cover of my file and signed by the Lord
Chief Justice? This note was to the effect that my trial should not be heard
other than by a High Court Judge due to the above mentioned events. That
note came up from the Old Bailey on my file and you must have seen it? You
must have been aware that the fool Justice Stroyan was certainly not a High
Court Judge - and should not have been any sort of judge at all - and yet
you as the officially appointed Prosecutor, having had information that this
was common knowledge at Middlesbrough, this means that you must have known
from Day One that my trial was certainly incorrect and improper if not
illegal. You must also have been aware that the fool Stroyan was dressing
himself up in a childish copy of High Court robes, and yet you were prepared
to knowingly take part in this pantomime trial. You were obviously very
desperate to get away from the Leeds Circuit. What was there waiting in
Leeds to catch up with you, and, as you expressed to your last friend on the
Leeds Circuit, you would do anything to get down to London and onto the very
lucrative Inner London Circuit. So, that posting was obviously the bribe
that caused you to betray your profession - through pure greed and an
overwhelming desire for monies, monies, monies ...
Further background to the trial transcripts and the recordings
As
listed in the questions above, I give some of the reasons why the evil
parrot should be forcibly subjected to a polygraph test. Check this link to
Rivlin’s closing speech which he afterwards attempted to “disappear”.
Unfortunately for him the Police were later obliged to hand over their
recording of the trial, and this evil, illegal, unfair and false closing
speech has now been made to “re-appear”.
Anyone reading Rivlin’s closing speech will be puzzled by the numerous
references to other alleged wicked acts by myself, which will probably
confuse them as much as they obviously confused the jury at the time. This
is why I have now put up Chapter One of the now withdrawn and pulped Penguin
book
The Fall of Scotland Yard.
This reads very badly for me, but as the libel lawyers explained after I was
convicted and my appeal had been rejected “you now have no good character to
defend or protect”.
I
have put up this horrible character assassination, the publication of which
brought my Old Bailey trial to an immediate and premature end (at a cost of
£3 million to the public purse) and was in fact the document that Rivlin was
obviously using as his Prosecution brief during my trial. By comparing
Rivlin’s closing speech (and Angus Stroyan
summing up) against
Chapter One
of
The Fall of Scotland Yard
it will become clear what alleged acts of corruption Rivlin is referring the
jury in order to win his closing speech, which I found astonishing because
Rivlin must have known at the time he was made my Prosecutor that the
previous Old Bailey trial had failed because of the false allegations
contained within that book, and which had been deliberately circulated to
the jury by
The Times
newspapers reporters Lloyd and Mounter.
The
bulk of the allegations in the book had been part of a massive committal in
1970, and all the allegations except the three of which I eventually went on
trial had been dismissed and thrown out by the magistrates. I was committed
for trial on 3 charges only of allegedly receiving three £50 bribes from a
local criminal Michael Perry, even though the Bank of England produced
evidence that the bank notes allegedly given to me had not in fact been
printed until sometime after my last meeting with Perry. In view of that
fact, plus overwhelming evidence from the Defence sound engineers (supported
by the original Prosecution sound engineers, who had come over and
volunteered to give evidence for my Defence), plus the evidence of
The Times
newspaper staff which went to prove that the tape recordings had been
undoubtedly edited and the submitted transcripts of those recordings were
hotly disputed by all the sound engineers, I was most disappointed about my
Old Bailey trial being stopped on the grounds that this Penguin book had
been circulated to members of the jury by
The Times
reporters. I would have been acquitted.
Who was instructing Rivlin?
A
further question for Rivlin must be who instructed him to run a prosecution
based upon setting out to prove the false allegations made against me by
The Times
newspaper staff at a time when
Lord Thomson’s
lawyers had ordered him to pay nearly a £1 million into the High Court
against the libel actions brought by myself and the other 2 detectives. Once
we were all safely convicted of any form of dishonesty Thomson could go and
get his money back from the high court which is what he did.
The
only person to originally benefit from my being convicted was the late Lord
Thomson and
The Times
newspaper. The problem was that, having seen how the other detectives had
been dealt with and on the advice of friendly lawyers, I had removed myself
from the scene. During my period of absence
The Times
were behind the publication of
The Fall of Scotland Yard,
which made it almost impossible for me to avoid being convicted on my
return. My lawyers had instigated a further libel case against Penguin
Books, and from that time onwards there were two very rich and very corrupt
organisations who had a huge financial interest in ensuring my conviction at
all and any cost:
The Times
newspaper and its parent company Thomson Corporation (and the new owners
News International), and
Penguin Books
and their parent company Pearson.
On
my return to the UK I had exposed the Prime Minister and the new Chief of
MI5 as KGB agents. I had offered proof that MI6 and MI5 had both been
heavily penetrated by the KGB, as was the British Parliament, House of
Lords, the Civil Service, the Armed Services, Local Government, and last but
not least (and solely due to my efforts) the whole of the Metropolitan
Police Force in every facet of their organisation. There were hundreds of
names of persons to be investigated (supplied by me), together with details
of their known corrupt acts which had been used as a lever to bring about
their recruitment. So it can be seen from the above list that there were a
large number of people who wished me at the worst dead, and at the best
convicted of corruption and locked up for as long as possible, with the sole
objective of stripping me and my “accounts” of any credibility whatsoever,
and that has been my position for the past 40 years. ‘Symonds is a lunatic
and fantasist and everything he says should be disregarded’.
Eventually with the ending of the Cold War, leading to many defectors from
Russian Intelligence, including one who had spent years copying the contents
of the most secret KGB files,
Vasili Mitrokhin,
the basics of my original allegations were proved to have been true. The
Intelligence Services still refused to see me, and whenever I have attempted
to bring about a meeting they have run away with their hands over their ears
squealing “liar, liar pants on fire”!
As
to the question about who was instructing Rivlin, it could have been any of
the interested parties mentioned above, and any co-operative Prosecutor in
these circumstances could expect to receive rewards beyond the dreams of
avarice after obtaining the required conviction. Such a reward could tempt
any barrister into taking part in the above reported pantomime trial with a
fake High Court judge, and with criminal witnesses queuing up to give their
perjured evidence.
|
