I intend to get blogging in detail about the 2015 trial of Dr Patrick Sookhdeo over this summer, but in the meantime, here’s another titbit for you…
During the Prosecution’s opening speech at the 2015 trial of Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, barrister Mr Nicolas Gerasimidis observed correctly that Dr Sookhdeo is “very well known to many”.
Indeed. Dr Sookhdeo is very well known to many people – men and women of excellent character and sound discernment – and these people know very well that Dr Sookhdeo is incapable of doing what his false accuser claimed.
These people know that Dr Sookhdeo would never assault anybody. These people know that Dr Sookhdeo is a man of truth – in fact, a gentleman of exceptional honesty – and that his false accuser, ‘Mrs X’, is the one full of treachery, lies and deceit.
It is the very reason so many people have spoken out for Dr Sookhdeo in the wake of his wrongful convictions. It is the reason people will continue to speak out for Dr Sookhdeo. That Dr Sookhdeo is innocent is the reason he will be vindicated, sooner or later.
But what I really intend to address in this blog is the question of ‘How stupid are you?’ This was one of the fun games played by the Prosecutor with the jury during Dr Sookhdeo’s trial. How he must’ve amused himself. And, unfortunately for Dr Sookhdeo, the jurors were as stupid as presumably Mr Gerasimidis suspected.
But the questions for you, blog readers, are: ‘Is Dr Sookhdeo stupid?’ and ‘Are you stupid?’
During his opening speech, Mr Gerasimidis said, “…the prosecution say he [Dr Sookhdeo] had set this up. He had even to some extent set up his defence by saying, ‘Would you mind if I accidentally touched your breast’, and so it was ladies and gentlemen when ultimately he was arrested in relation to this matter and asked questions about what had happened he said precisely that to the police… So having said to her, ‘Will you excuse me if my hand accidentally touches your breast’, it was almost prophetic of what ultimately he was to say to the police when he was challenged…”
[Nota Bene: Dr Sookhdeo denied saying (to his false accuser) the words attributed to him by Mr Gerasimidis in the above quotation, and denied committing any assault, at his 2015 trial. (Dr Sookhdeo has alway acknowledged, openly and honestly – including to the police – that a momentary accidental brush occurred during a hug sprung upon him by the false accuser.) Since his 2015 trial, Dr Sookhdeo has maintained his innocence.]
Did you get that? Did you get that!
In the quotation above, the Prosecution claimed – in the only possible logical inference – that Dr Sookhdeo not only committed an indecent assault but that, as he was doing so, fearing a future criminal prosecution, he “set up his defence” in advance of the trial he knew he would face. Therefore, the Prosecution was encouraging jurors and observers to believe that Dr Sookhdeo was foolish enough to commit a crime whilst knowing he risked a criminal prosecution, but ‘clever’ enough concurrently to fabricate the world’s worst defence – namely that of speculative speech to his false accuser about accidental touching!
Is Dr Sookhdeo that stupid? No, he most certainly is not. Dr Patrick Sookhdeo is not a criminal or a pervert or an idiot. But Mr Gerasimidis would have us believe he is all three.
It just doesn’t fool any intelligent person with the ability to think clearly through the facts and the logic. (But unfortunately for Dr Sookhdeo, those sitting in judgement upon him, the twelve Swindon jurors, were unable to process the logic and to discern the truth from the lies and misrepresentations presented to them.)
And whilst I’m on the subject of ‘Is Dr Sookhdeo stupid? No he isn’t!’ I might as well mention briefly that stupidity is one of the illogical premises upon which his wrongful intimidation convictions is based.
One clear proof that the witnesses were not intimidated by Dr Sookhdeo is the fact that they did indeed testify against him at his trial. Witnesses who genuinely are victims of criminal intimidation generally do not testify – because, by definition, they are scared off. Intimidated persons withdraw as witnesses in circumstances where, for example, the heavies come round and make it plain they will be kneecapped or their house burned down if they testify.
Furthermore, those intentionally seeking to intimidate a witness will conduct themselves in such a way as to avoid detection; for example, by the use of a proxy. There would be no point in attempting to commit a crime if one knows one is certain to be caught in the act!
Now, Dr Sookhdeo is a very intelligent man. Quite apart from the fact that he is a Christian gentleman of great moral integrity (i.e. quite simply, he would never do such a thing), to find Dr Sookhdeo wrongfully guilty of intimidation is seriously to believe that Dr Sookhdeo would be so stupid as to attempt to intimidate prosecution witnesses directly, by himself, in front of a large crowd of witnesses!
The logic is compelling here: think it through. Even a really stupid person would not be so stupid as to attempt something he knew to be a crime in front of a room full of witnesses. So would a very clever man like Dr Sookhdeo be so stupid? No, he certainly would not.
It is very clear then that Dr Sookhdeo had no motive or agenda to intimidate anybody in his speech on 06 June 2014.