Pearce and Maestri trial - day 3

As a precaution, this article was removed after reference was made to it by the defence at the trial. I decided that although the judge took no action, I didn't want there to be be any possibility of a mistrial being caused by the blog, even though the jurors had been specifically enjoined not to look for details of the case on the Internet. It is now being restored in its original form.

For most of the day the victim fielded questions from Maestri's counsel, Pearce's counsel and the prosecution barrister. The defence lawyers attempted to undermine his credibility and pick holes in his story. The victim presented himself well and remained calm throughout in spite of the way he was treated by the defence.

It was again suggested that the victim was simply after money and that he was on the "compensation wagon". He replied that he was not, and that if he had wanted money he would have taken his case to a civil court and not a criminal court.

The defence pointed out that since leaving the School, the victim had attended a funeral at the Abbey and a party at the School for a history master who was retiring. It was suggested that someone who had experienced abuse at the School would not have returned for these events. The victim said that the funeral was that of a friend and that he had a high opinion of the retiring history master.

A great deal of attention was paid to the rooms in which the abuse took place and the victim was asked to describe them in detail. In his original statement he had told police that the playground was visible from one of the rooms. In court one of the defence lawyers asked him if the playing fields could be seen from the window. The victim pointed out that the playing fields were in Perivale, about one and a half miles away.

Pearce's lawyer made great attempts to stampede the victim into giving specific dates for the abuse. It was claimed that Pearce had moved office at some point and the lawyer's strategy was clearly to try to get the victim to specify the wrong room. He went too far in his attempts and at this point the judge put him in his place very firmly.

Pearce's lawyer pointed out that the victim was fourteen when some of the abuse took place and asked, "why didn't you stand up for yourself?" He said that the victim claimed to have been abused by Pearce seven or eight times and found it strange that he returned to his office if he knew what was going to do be done to him. The victim talked about the controlling culture of the School and explained that in those days the boys were trained to be obedient to authority. He said that the abuse had petered out when Pearce lost interest in him and presumably turned his attention elsewhere.

Some of the issues raised on day two of the trial were revisited. There was further discussion of the interview with Fr Anthony Gee, and of this blog.

An email which the victim had sent to a friend was read in court, in it he described the abuse that he had been subjected to. One of the defence lawyers asked if it was true that he had been in trouble with the police as the result of a fight with another boy on a bus while he was a pupil at the School. The victim admitted that it was true, said that he wasn't proud of it, that he had had to pay for damage to the other boy's clothes and that his own father had been very angry with him.

The next witness to be called was DC Christine Hobson who had carried out the recorded interview of the victim, which was shown to the jury on day two of the trial. She was asked about the interview and in particular she was questioned as to why it was so short (about one hour) and why the victim made claims in later statements that he did not make at the time. She said that this was the way that things were usually done, that it was an initial interview and that the victim could not be expected to remember everything. The purpose of the interview was to establish an outline of the allegations any to determine lines of questioning for later interviews.

The case resumes at 10.15 a.m. on Tuesday.

Pearce and Maestri trial - day 2

As a precaution, this article was removed after reference was made to it by the defence at the trial. I decided that although the judge took no action, I didn't want there to be be any possibility of a mistrial being caused by the blog, even though the jurors had been specifically enjoined not to look for details of the case on the Internet. It is now being restored in its original form.

The jury were told that they would be shown a video of the victim telling police officers about the offences that Pearce and Maestri had allegedly committed against him. They were told that the victim would be appearing in court in person but would be shielded by partitioning.

The video equipment and the partitioning were set up and then the prosecution outlined the allegations that the victim would be making in the video.

The jury watched the video (it lasted for about an hour), after which Maestri's barrister was given the opportunity to question the victim.

Unsurprisingly he tried to find daylight in the evidence provided. Days, dates, differences in what was said. “Did you have friends at school?’ ‘Why did you not confide in them about the abuse?’. There were detailed questions about precisely when the abuse happened, the barrister seemed keen to get the victim to commit to certain months, but it was clear the victim could not remember specific dates.

Maestri's barrister asked whether the victim was motivated by a desire for financial compensation. The victim replied that although he was aware that others had been awarded compensation, he was not looking for money.

The barrister asked for details about the beatings that Maestri had given the victim:

• How many times had he been beaten?
• What clothing had he had to remove?
• Was the door locked?
• What was he beaten with?
• What was the temperature in the room?
• Was there central heating?
• Was anyone else present in the room?

The victim answered all of the questions and said that he believed Maestri had been masturbating while he beat him.

There were questions about the tea parties to which the victim and other boys were invited by Maestri. It seems that on these occasions the victim and Maestri were never alone together.

The barrister noted that the victim now made a living as a lifestyle counsellor and asked him if he had ever studied psychology. The victim said that he had.

Repeated mention was made of this blog, emails to me, and the report of the Times in April 2010.

The victim said that in spite of achieving good O-level results he decided not to go into St. Benedict's sixth form. His form master was surprised that such a capable pupil didn't want to stay at the school and sent him to see Father Anthony Gee (the headmaster). When Father Anthony asked him why he was leaving, he told him about Pearce and Maestri. Father Anthony became very angry and said that his stories were untrue and malicious. He threatened to blacken the names of the boy's father and grandfather if he repeated his allegations. The interview had ended with the victim and the headmaster shouting at each other.

The victim said that he was very fond of his father and grandfather and so he never told them anything about it. His grandfather is now dead.

The case resumes at 10.15 on Friday.