Two weeks after the event: Sir Nicholas Wall’s judgements


  1. John Hemming MP had removed the gag so that Vicky Haigh and Doncaster Council could be named
  2. being outside UK jurisdiction, I publish
  3. the publication of a ‘statement’ as a virtual press release by Sir Nicholas Wall after the hearing on 22 August 2011 resulted in seriously bad press for Vicky and good press for the father; he admits to his daughter being abused, but not by him
  4. this produced soooooo many and so negative comments that I stopped enjoying my self-appointed role as web publisher and I set the site to “private”: invited users only
  5. today Sir Nicholas Wall published one judgment re Vicky Haigh and another one re Elizabeth Watson

Of course, either we or they are ‘right’ and reflecting the truth of the experiences of the little girl.

Watch this space as Vicky will submit the critical evidence to the judge which he’ll want to ignore. For he’s set himself up to protect the system of criminals.

Does it have to go on and continue like this, even though the case is now the first one in the public domain? Does the battle in courts continue as battles between papers or will some journalists be more investigative than others?


About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is
This entry was posted in John Hemming MP, Mainstream Media, Publicity and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Two weeks after the event: Sir Nicholas Wall’s judgements

  1. Jimmy says:

    “either we or they are ‘right’”

    No. They are.

    “invited users only”

    No dissent. Only people who agree with you. Sounds very dull.

  2. Steve says:

    In another comment elsewhere it was stated that there are two sides to each story.
    However; there are “Three parties” involved in all the “evil and duplicitous secrecy” of Family Court proceedings. Fact is, it is the third party of the wig-wearers who are on trial – and not before time. That such a lack of transparency continues in this day and age – “it’s as transparent as mud M’lud” – is the real crime against humanity. It continues because the judiciary just don’t get it. Their days of turning the truth upside down and inside out a la Joseph Stalin & Co – to protect their busted probity are over. As for the neutered press, media and Poorliamentarians – just look at them ‘across the board’ and at their sloven and spinless sucking up to the likes of Murdoch. Who’s been kidding who M’luds are you all not supping with the devil – or entrapped / blackmailed by him and his cohorts?

  3. JM says:

    you can’t rely on journalists to fight the war….what use would they be, ‘cept for cannon fooder? AND THEY ALL WORK FOR THE OTHER SIDE! THEY WOULDN’T ALLOWED TO BE JOURNALISTS IF THEY DIDN’T! World full of poxy morons you know….

  4. Steve says:

    Where are all the mouthy know alls or is this a time where the “Silence of the lambs” shows how little so many of the mouthy ones really know?

  5. Having read the two judgements by Sir Nicholas Wall it is pretty clear that the child’s father is innocent and has been subjected to appalling behaviour by those who tried to get him into serious trouble. Just because somebody says “The law doesn’t apply to me” that does not make it so.

    As for the magna carta references ………. what a joke that is!

  6. Anonymous says:

    The father never DID admit to the child being abused. What he said was that the accusations of child abuse were so regular that he was BEGINNING TO BELIEVE that the child had been abused. That is entirely different to what No 3 above states!!! Be careful what you say. Make sure you state things correctly!!

  7. Jimmy says:

    The child was abused, but by the mother, not the father.

    • erica leith says:

      Hi Jimmy, Too true…she is clearly unstable, just read the story being reported in Ireland…hope they are doing something to protect the second child…otherwise I guess a similar situation will be on the cards before too long.

    • JM says:

      ???? how can you possibly know??? if you were there, why did u not do anything?????

  8. Jimmy says:

    We know because three courts have now looked at this and come to the same conclusion. Something has been done. The child is now safe from her abuser.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Aw c’mon!! If you read the judgement you will see that VH DECLINED to see her child!! O.K. it was to be a supervised meeting but if she genuinely loved the child she would have attended. No, VH would rather (according to the Judge) turn up at school and defy the non molestation order! If ever there was a case of NPD then VH fits it 100%. Do you know, VH wouldn’t give a s***’ about the lot of you. It’s rather like the person who instigates a brawl in a pub. The whole pub joins in but when the cops arrive the person who is the initial instigator is usually found in a corner saying “what’s up – nothing to do with me!! The sure fire traits of one with NPD is to ‘use and abuse’. Yup – VH ABUSED (emotionally) the child and then USED!! She USED you lot. She’s sat cosily in Ireland now probably well chuffed with herself. If VH is looking for love then tell her to look in the mirror!!!! Google “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” read the articles clearly. Then, find me one trait which VH does not have and report back here. The Judge will have seen hundreds of similar types to Miss Haigh!! As simple as that!!! No, you lot fell for the three card trick!! Narcissists? Yep- they play the part of the ‘victim’ when in fact they are, in fact, the persecutor!!! Nice of the Irish Independent paper to report on the case. At least if VH sucks in the lovely people of Ireland at least they were warned!!!

  10. Pingback: What do Vicky Haigh and the Musas have in common? Sir Nicholas Wall! « Vicky Haigh: requesting her daughter to return

  11. JM says:

    wtf? fracking trolls taking acid again?

  12. Pingback: The Tap Blog | Media Takes Side Of Paedophiles Against Victims

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s