Tag: liar

Maxwell’s Fake Image
As her lawyer issues an image of her with a black eye, mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell’s history with fakery should lead anyone rational to question whether its current or genuine even
- In the wake of its release yesterday, one has to ask: “When was the supposedly ‘new’ photograph of Ghislaine Maxwell with a black eye under her eye actually taken and is it actually genuine?”
- Responding to the snap being shared on the official ‘RealGhislaine’ Twitter handle, one user remarked of the allegedly fake image: “Absolute trot!” whilst another added: “Perhaps she slipped manicuring her eyebrows with clippers.”
- Miss Maxwell’s history with fake imagery and manipulation relating to such has previously illustrated her dishonesty in this area.
- The photograph of alleged vegan Ghislaine Maxwell munching on a burger in Los Angeles in August 2019 that was released by her associate was widely debunked later as a fake.
- A photograph that Prince Andrew claims to be faked – taken in Miss Maxwell’s house in 2001 – has never been proven to be anything other than real.
- Like her fraudulent father, anything but honest Ghislaine Maxwell also has a history of using pseudonyms and called herself “Jen Marshall” or “Janet Marshall” when buying ‘Tuckedaway’ in November 2019.
- Our conclusion: “Is Ghislaine Maxwell a woman whose word and images can be trusted in any regard or is she just an utter fake?”
Like the case of the boy who repeatedly cried wolf, grubby groaner Ghislaine Maxwell and those close to her also have a history with visual media that would make even the most sympathetic individual doubt what they have to say in that context. As a result, the latest potentially fake image – released by her lawyer and on her ‘RealGhislaine’ Twitter handle – of the incarcerated alleged teenage trafficker with a black eye should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Aside from her and Prince Andrew having utterly failed in their efforts to get anyone to believe the 2001 photograph of the randy royal with his “chubby fingers” around the waist of the then 17-year-old Virginia Roberts at her Kinnerton Street house to be anything but genuine, the ‘Bouncing Czech’s’ daughter has many other links to the misuse and manipulation of imagery.

Firstly, it must be remembered that the mucky madam was likely involved in leaking that infamous “too perfect” photoshopped image of herself at an In-N-Out Burger restaurant in Los Angeles in August 2019. Aside from this wicked woman – whom bangs on about being vegan constantly now – “planting herself for a double-double” burger, that image was subsequently debunked by The Cut. For them, Bridget Read stated:

“The intrepid Daily Mail checked out the location of the burger joint in Hollywood where Maxwell was allegedly spotted by a regular last week and found some odd discrepancies. Notably, a bus stop in the background of the shot shows an advertisement for the movie Good Boys – which the company that operates the ad space said has never been there. The bus stop currently displays an ad for a local hospital, which it says has been there since July 28. Maxwell was supposedly photographed at the In-N-Out on August 12.”

Fake Maxwell – Prior to her arrest at the curiously named ‘Tucked Away’ using the invented name ‘Jen Marshall’ or Janet Marshall,’ woman-of-multiple identities Ghislaine Maxwell’s associates allegedly released most likely faked images of her at an In-N-Out restaurant.

Fake Maxwell – This anything but fake photograph of “chubby fingered” Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell on the first floor landing of 44 Kinnerton Street, Belgravia, London, SW1X 8ES on 10th March 2001 quite rightly remains in the public domain in spite of the royal claiming it to have been a doctored creation.

“Questions about Maxwell’s lunch outing have fed into the already robust set of conspiracy theories around Epstein, his high-profile acquaintances, and his death. Why was a second smartphone on the In-N-Out table? Why did Maxwell never stick a straw in either her soda or her shake? Why did the diner who supposedly photographed her have such a nice camera, with a lens that took a very clear photo? It doesn’t help that the In-N-Out employees at that location have been forbidden, supposedly by their employer, to talk about Maxwell’s visit.”

“If Saffian did indeed leak the photo of Maxwell, it was likely to try and throw the FBI off her scent… If the In-N-Out photo is indeed doctored, Maxwell could be anywhere and could show up anywhere she pleases. What’s next? Some predictions: eating a hot dog on the steps of the Met, posing with a cactus at Joshua Tree, riding a unicycle at Burning Man, or painting her nails on the C train.”

Secondly, Miss Maxwell and her now deceased paedophile ex-lover have been repeatedly accused of covert surveillance of high-profile guests – including potentially the film director Woody Allen, President Bill Clinton, lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Barclay’s chief Jes Staley and the Duke of York – at the homes they shared. With holes in ceilings where technology for such was installed found in Epstein’s Lenox Hill, New York townhouse, for example, the clear indication is that information gathered was used to blackmail those targeted into doing whatever this deviant duo wished.

Thirdly and most relevantly, the most ‘recent’ image of Miss Maxwell – a woman accused of having snapped sleazy images of naked people at Epstein’s now demolished Palm Beach perv pad in addition – shared by lawyer Bobbi Sternheim yesterday of the disgraced socialite allegedly sporting a black eye should now be questioned in the same way as that of the supposedly spurious In-N-Out snapshot.

Of the very dubious and potentially fake image of the “black eye,” Sternheim moaned in a letter to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan:

“Last night, she was confronted by MDC staff due a visible bruise over her left eye. The ‘black eye’ is depicted in Exhibit B. Despite 24/7 camera surveillance (except when guards elect to exert authority in an intimidating way off-camera, as they did in Saturday’s bathroom incident), no guard addressed the bruise until Ms. Maxwell, who has no mirror, caught a reflection of her aching eye in the glean of a nail clipper.”

“At that point, MDC staff confronted Ms. Maxwell regarding the source of the bruise, threatening to place her in the SHU if she did not reveal how she got it.”

“While Ms. Maxwell is unaware of the cause of the bruise, as reported to medical and psych staff, she has grown increasingly reluctant to report information to the guards for fear of retaliation, discipline, and punitive chores. However, there is concern that the bruise may be related to the need for Ms. Maxwell to shield her eyes from the lights projected into her cell throughout the night.”

“The MDC routinely places inmates in the SHU if they have engaged in physical altercation with other inmates or to protect inmates who are the subject of abuse. It would be ironic if the MDC follows through with its threat to place Ms. Maxwell in the SHU: It would signal that Ms. Maxwell needs protection from the very staff so intent on protecting her, since she has no contact with anyone but staff.”

Frankly, given said image is unaccompanied by any kind of source information or date, it should be treated with the same skepticism as to anything related to a woman who once answered: “[I am a citizen of] TerraMar,” when asked what country she was from by the FBI.

Pictured top: The undated, unsourced, potentially fake image released by Bobbi Sternheim showing Ghislaine Maxwell sporting what they claim to be a black eye (left) and the subsequently debunked ‘fake’ image of Ghislaine Maxwell at a Los Angeles, California In-N-Out burger diner in August 2019 (right).

Brothers in Coats – Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

Elsewhere yesterday, a beady eyed reader pointed out to The Steeple Times something that surprisingly utterly everybody else has missed about the 2010 photograph of ‘Randy Andy’ walking in New York’s Central Park with the then already released from jail for two years already paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Both men are clearly wearing identical coats and frankly anyone with half a brain will now enquire: “Why? What are they? Creepy, copycat blood brothers?”

What next? Perhaps ‘Mucky Maxwell’s’ PR peddler Brian Basham could launch a sideline fundraiser by selling a limited edition run of the coats on RealGhislaine.com. Cha-ching!
April 30, 2021
Second Inquest for Stuart Lubbock 2021

As he faces death, murder victim Stuart Lubbock’s father hires top lawyer to seek a second inquest into what went on in Michael Barrymore’s swimming pool in 2001

Nearly twenty years ago on 31^st March 2001, ‘entertainer’ Michael Barrymore invited a gaggle of people to his home for an after-party. He knew some of them well, others less so and when one of them, 31-year-old Stuart Lubbock, was found dead in the environs of his swimming pool, a wall of silence disgracefully went up.

One man, the victim’s father Terry Lubbock, has run a campaign to get justice and though Barrymore and his cronies have repeatedly contradicted one another and nobody has ever been convicted, this determined individual has never given up.

Now suffering with terminal prostate cancer and living in a care home in Harlow, Essex Terry Lubbock yesterday told the Mirror that he hopes to “win permission to apply to the High Court for a new inquest” and stated:

“I’ve only a few months left. I want justice for my son before I go. We’ve got a big-gun barrister working on this. We are getting close.”

“The first inquest was either a mess-up or a cover-up. Our own team have been working on the case and have dug up new evidence. We are going for a second inquest. It will reveal everything.”

“Whoever did this to my son has got away with it for 20 years, but not for much longer. I can’t die without knowing there will be a second inquest because then I feel sure the truth will come out.”

Responding, the QC mentioned, Alan Payne, remarked:

“Terry is a man of great dignity and principle. I was grateful for the chance to help identify steps that might be taken to try to get greater clarity as to events surrounding his son’s death.”

Last month, we reported on a member of Essex Police giving a statement about the case. At the time, Detective Chief Inspector Stephen Jennings remarked:

“I believe that [Stuart] was raped and murdered that night. One or more of those party-goers are responsible for that serious sexual assault on Stuart Lubbock.”

“We remain committed to this investigation and continue to appeal for information leading to arrest and conviction in relation to the rape and murder of Stuart Lubbock.”

“Nine people went to the party at Michael Barrymore’s house, but only one of them – Stuart – ended up being violently sexually assaulted and murdered.”

“We know not everyone at that party was responsible for what happened, but someone was. We also know that not everyone at that party may know what happened, but someone does.”

“We want the people who do have information to come forward and talk to us – it is never too late to do the right thing and give the Lubbock family the answers and justice they have waited so long to have.”

To learn of developments in this case, follow the Justice4Stuart Official page on Twitter at @Justice4Stuart.

Pictured top: Disgraced ‘entertainer’ Michael Barrymore (left) and Terry Lubbock with a picture of his murdered son, Stuart.

Second Inquest for Stuart Lubbock 2021 – The scene of the crime: Michael Barrymore’s then home, 4 Beaumont Park Drive, Roydon, Harlow, Essex, CM19 5HB.

Second Inquest for Stuart Lubbock 2021 – Barrister Alan Payne has been brought in to use “new evidence” to secure a second inquest into the murder of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore’s then home on 31st March 2001.

Justice for Stuart Lubbock – The people who need to tell the truth about what happened at Michael Barrymore’s home on 31^st March 2001

Michael Parker (AKA Michael Barrymore) – Allegedly loudly said: “I need a f**k” in a taxi as he left the Millennium Nightclub to return to his home, the scene of the death of Stuart Lubbock.

Barrymore later lied to a coroner’s court about facilitating drug taking at his house on the night in question also. He claimed to have been first to have discovered the body of Stuart Lubbock at 5.45am, called his manager Mike Brown before the ambulance arrived and then left the premises. He admits that was “wrong” and also bizarrely told Piers Morgan that in spite of “knowing others were hiding secrets about what happened to Mr. Lubbock” that “I am not going to say their names. I just hope they are brave enough to come forward one day.”

Mike Brown – Agent of Michael Barrymore. Called to the property before emergency services arrived.

Kelly Campbell – Had met Michael Barrymore for the first time on the night of the incident. Claimed not to have been aware of what happened.

James Futters (sometimes spelt ‘Futers’) – A paper boy turned chef. Described as “a local from the village” and a “friend and neighbour of Barrymore.” Claimed to have been the first to discover the body with Simon Shaw and stated: “[It was not] Michael Barrymore and not Jonathan Kenney [who found him].” Later, of him the Evening Standard reported: “Barrymore offered James Futters a white powder on his finger saying: ‘Do you want to try this?’ Mr Futters told the inquest that he leaned forward and licked the powder.”

Claire Jones – Then aged 17. Had met Michael Barrymore for the first time on the night of the incident. Claimed not to have been aware of what happened but told the police that she “saw Barrymore rummaging through drawers and changing his clothes before police arrived. When he left the house, he had a ‘bundle of material’ under his arm,” according to the Evening Standard. “She added: ‘Jonathan (Kenney) was rushing through the bungalow before the ambulance and police arrived. I got the impression he was hiding something.’”

Jonathan Kenney – Estate agent, drag queen and Michael Barrymore’s then lover; later arrested on suspicion of murder but never charged; known for having a “record of violence.” Claimed to have been the first to have discovered the body.

Justin Merritt – A dustman from Essex. Later arrested on suspicion of murder but never charged. Later paid £30,000 by the News of the World for an interview in which he stated Barrymore had “rubbed cocaine on Stuart Lubbock’s lips shortly before he died.”

Kylie Merritt – Sister of Justin Merritt. She also alleged Barrymore “rubbed cocaine on Stuart Lubbock’s lips shortly before he died” (curiously in the wake of her brother selling his account of the night).

Simon Shaw – Described as “a local from the village.” Michael Barrymore supposedly “ran off” to Mr. Shaw’s house to “buy himself thinking time [for two hours] before he was questioned by the police [at 7.49am].”

In addition, others, who’ve never been identified could also have possibly been present. If they were, they should come forward or be named by those listed above.

March 14, 2021
The MeGain & Randy Show
It’s time for the ‘MeGain & Randy Show’… As dopey dipstick Diane Abbott MP sticks her gumboots into the fallout of the Duchess of Sussex’s car crash interview, the scandalous Prince Andrew should again be called to answer questions

Bombastic blabbermouth Diane Abbott MP has been unusually quiet for months. Yes, she’s had to deal with the fallout of her beastlike son biting police officers, but since she was turfed off the front benches when her one-time motorbiking sexual partner Jeremy Corbyn fell, we’ve not even heard of any conundrums with calculators or mojito can slurping calamities on a train by her even.

This morning, however, seizing on an opportunity to shove her gibberish filled gumboots back into the fray in the wake of the Duchess of Sussex’s Prince Andrew-esque interview, Abbott decided to chuck a hand grenade into the mix and told the Guardian:

“One of the most upsetting things is when people, meaning well, will say: ‘Oh, but Diane, you’re so strong.’ Nobody is that strong. Nobody can take the sort of abuse that Meghan had to take and that I’ve had to take. And by dismissing it by saying: ‘Oh, black women are strong,’ that’s denying our humanity.”

“For a lot of black and mixed-race women, when they can look at what we’re now hearing, what’s happening to Meghan, they can realise: if this can happen to her and if it could be so crushing and humiliating to her, I can face up to how that sort of thing makes me feel.”

“We shouldn’t internalise the idea that we’re not supposed to feel vulnerable, we’re not supposed to get upset, and we should have people around us that we can confide in, or we can be open with. Otherwise, it’s incredibly corrosive.”

Going further, on Radio 4 later, Abbott added:

“[Palace officials] clearly very soon did not welcome a mixed race woman marrying into the Royal Family… There has got to be very serious reflection. They need to look at some of the people that work at Buckingham Palace.”

“I don’t think they necessarily need to get into a tit for tat publicly but they do need to think hard about some of the attitudes of the courtiers, the aides the advisers who are in Buckingham Palace because it is clear that on that level they didn’t adjust well to having a mixed-race woman marry into the Royal Family.”

“[The media want to] tear down a woman for no apparent reason.”

Whilst the brain of Britain that isn’t Miss Abbott’s influence in this matter will likely not go far, elsewhere in the Guardian this morning, the paper’s Ben Quinn reported that Gloria Allred, a lawyer for some of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, “has suggested that Buckingham Palace’s plans to examine bullying allegations against the Duchess of Sussex are a “calculated decision” to take the focus off Prince Andrew.”

Speaking of alleged bullying by the Duchess of Sussex specifically, Allred told the paper:

“Allegations about him are far worse than the allegations about Meghan Markle. Prince Andrew was a working royal when he became a friend of Jeffrey Epstein, who was a sexual predator… Prince Andrew is accused of much more than bullying or harassment in the workplace.”

“Why does Buckingham Palace not conduct an investigation and make a public statement condemning Prince Andrew for failing to provide what is requested to those who are seeking the whole truth and justice for the victims of crimes against children?”

“Why has Prince Andrew not been stripped of the royal titles that he enjoys, as has been the case for Meghan and Harry? He has certainly not brought dignity and respect to his work as a royal.”

“The investigation into Meghan Markle is a distraction, and it appears hypocritical under the circumstances. I have to wonder if it reflects a calculated decision to take the focus off of Prince Andrew.

“It is long overdue for the palace to change its priorities and announce that it is conducting its own investigation of Prince Andrew. In addition, it should immediately issue a statement condemning Prince Andrew for failing to provide full in-person cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by the United States justice department.”

Now, today, we join those calling for ‘Randy Andy’ to finally do the decent thing: Be a good boy and go to America and answer the FBI’s perfectly reasonable questions about your involvement with the mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell and your conveniently croaked ‘bestie’ Jeffrey Epstein.

The MeGain & Randy Show – For months now, people have been asking of Diane Abbott: “Have you seen this woman?” Well, this morning she predictably resurfaced and stuck her gumboots into the fallout of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s disastrous interview with Oprah Winfrey.

The MeGain & Randy Show – The “publicity shy” Duchess of Sussex (or Meghan Markle as she then was) used to be happy to hang around with publicity loving Lizzie Cundy. Whether she actually “ghosted” her former ‘friend’ and Piers Morgan is also debatable.

The confusion of the woman formerly known as Meghan Markle

Whilst the Duchess of Sussex’s outlandish claims have been widely drilled into this morning by the international media, here are a few other questions she and her ‘drip’ of a husband could do with addressing:
- What was the then Meghan Markle’s association with Prince Andrew prior to meeting Prince Harry? Are there any truths to allegations that she was caught cavorting with ‘Randy Andy’ on a yacht many years ago?
- Given ‘MeGain’ banged on about her friendship with Prince Andrew’s daughters prior to meeting Prince Harry in the Oprah interview, is there really any truth to her having never Googled the royal family or researched them with a view to seeking them out?
- Did the then Meghan Markle really “ghost” her supposed chums Lizzie Cundy and Piers Morgan or are they both just getting rather carried away with their own attention seeking agendas?
- Prior to marrying into the royal family and since, has ‘MeGain’ “organised pap shots” of herself?
- Why did the Duchess of Sussex lie and claim she hadn’t met her half-sister in over 20 years when photographic evidence shows quite to the contrary 13 years ago?
- Why didn’t the Duchess of Sussex simply show herself to be a bigger person and make amends with her own father instead of going to war on him? If she had simply behaved with dignity and made one less enemy, wouldn’t she have been perceived as a far better person?
- Why is the Duchess of Sussex claiming that the royal family “silenced” her at the same time as repeatedly giving interviews to the international media and taking the dime of the hardly quiet Netflix and Spotify?
- Why are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex now suggesting they were “cut of financially” by the royal family when they previously stated they “wanted to be financially independent”?
- Why do ‘MeGain’ and her drip husband think they should be entitled to have the public pay for their security when they turned their backs on public duty for first “privacy” and then personal profit?
- If ‘MeGain’ wanted such a “simple life,” why did she seek out a career first in acting and then get herself into a relationship with a member of the royal family?
- Why, subsequently, did this woman with a desire for “ordinariness” then return to Los Angeles and sign deals with the likes of Disney, Netflix and Spotify?
- Has ‘MeGain’ ever used body doubles of herself and her son, Archie?
- Did the Duchess of Sussex make up that she had already been married to Prince Harry for three days when she walked down the aisle on 19^th May 2018?
- How many times has ‘MeGain’ actually been married? Twice or three times?
The MeGain & Randy Show – The Duchess of Sussex’s claim that she hadn’t seen her half-sister Samantha Markle in 20 years has been proven to be a lie by fact of this photograph.

The MeGain & Randy Show – The Duchess of Sussex also stands accused of organising paparazzi to take photographs of her, yet hypocritically still moans and bangs on about press intrusion.

The MeGain & Randy Show – Ever since she came to public prominence, social media has been awash with rumours about the Duchess of Sussex and her use of body doubles and some go further even and remarkably suggest she faked her pregnancy even.

The MeGain & Randy Show – Elsehwere on social media, this image of graffiti that read “Prince Andew is still a nonce” trended. Contrary to what many suggest, however, it is quite possible to actually dislike the behaviour of both the Duchess of Sussex and Duke of York as the two are not mutually connected.

The MeGain & Randy Show – Those “in the know” continue to question when Meghan Markle first met Prince Andrew and what went on between them prior to her marriage to the alleged sexual abuser’s nephew.
March 9, 2021
Farting Fergie

Sarah Ferguson gets overexcited over a farting book, but still hasn’t declared if she’s repaid a loan from paedo Jeffrey Epstein

Somewhat simple Sarah Ferguson – a wack job who still hasn’t declared whether she ever repaid money she took as a loan from the croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – took to YouTube this week to read a “scratch and sniff unicorn fart book.”

Whilst well-known as a lover of having her tepid toes sucked in the past, Pizza Express (Woking branch) loving ‘Randy Andy’s’ live-in ex-wife enthusiasm for a book about “emitting wind from the anus” was subsequently described as her showing she’s “ever the working girl” according to the MailOnline’s Claire Toureille.

Fergie’s farts, however, have yet to gain gas and go viral. In spite of a further article by Craig Brown in the Daily Mail which asked if the fruitcake known as the former Meghan Markle would be doing a follow-up fart “30 years from now,” just 835 people have actually bothered to watch this one-time royal bang on about flatulence.

Famous Farts

Roald Dahl, The BFG

“A whizzpopper!” cried the BFG, beaming at her. “Us giants is making whizzpoppers all the time! Whizzpopping is a sign of happiness. It is music in our ears! You surely is not telling me that a little whizzpopping if forbidden among human beans?”

Ernest Hemmingway, 88 Poems

“Home is where the heart is, home is where the fart is.

Come let us fart in the home.

There is no art in a fart.

Still a fart may not be artless.

Let us fart and artless fart in the home.”

Robert Rinder

“I can smell a liar like a fart in a lift!”

Farting Fergie – What will Her Majesty The Queen make of Sarah, Duchess of York’s decision to share stories with the world via YouTube about farting?

Farting Fergie – In February 2018, the ‘Mirror’ reported that: “The Queen once got accused of farting loudly and trying to blame it on the horses.” They remarked: “The Queen is probably one of the last people on earth you can imagine farting in public. Not only would it be mortifying to accidentally let rip while meeting her subjects, the whole world would soon get to know about it.”

Farting Fergie – ‘Fergie’s’ non-sweating ex-husband Prince Andrew was widely mocked after claiming to distinctly remember a visit to Pizza Express in Woking on the day he allegedly had sex with the then teenage Virginia Roberts, now Giuffre, in 2001. During his juggernaut crashworthy interview with Emily Maitlis in November 2019, he remarked: “I was with the children and I’d taken Beatrice to a Pizza Express in Woking for a party at I suppose four or five in the afternoon. And then because the duchess [Sarah Ferguson] was away, we have a simple rule in the family that when one is away the other is there.” Whether he actually attended has since been disputed and whether he actually consumed pizza and whether it caused him to fart remains still unknown.

Farting Fergie – On Thursday 20th August 1992, the ‘Daily Mirror’ shared what they called “the pictures they didn’t want you to see.” In them, a topless Duchess of York was shown having her toes sucked in the South of France by a Texan millionaire named John Bryan. Of the incident, the ‘Mirror’ later reported: “Royal writer Richard Kay claimed in the ‘Daily Mail’ that he received a message via pager from Princess Diana the night before the photos hit the newspaper stands. Diana’s message was simple: ‘The redhead’s in trouble.’”

Farting Fergie – Sarah, Duchess of York pictured with the since incarcerated Ghislaine Maxwell at an opening party at Asprey in 2003. It remains unknown as to whether ‘Fergie’ ever repaid a loan from the mucky madam’s now croaked boss Jeffrey Epstein, but this week a New York court threw out mendacious Maxwell’s bid to keep her 2016 testimony about sex toys sealed.

February 11, 2021
Mendacious Maker-Up Maxwell

Latest document unsealing in Ghislaine Maxwell case reveals the mucky madam to be mendacious and someone who makes things up

Ghislaine Maxwell last met with Prince Andrew in London at Buckingham Palace circa 8^th June 2019 during her visit to hang out with a bunch of braindead blonde bimbos at the Cash & Rocket ‘charity rally.’ Their conversational topic at that time remains unknown, but, without doubt, their mutual ‘bestie’ Jeffrey Epstein featured.

At that time, aside from busying her horrid self associating with Paris Hilton and Caroline Stanbury, the mucky madam was yet to face the onslaught of what was to come in the wake of Epstein’s arrest on 6^th July and subsequent suicide on 10^th August that year.

Now, with the release of a new tranche of previously sealed documents relating to the case brought against her by Virginia Giuffre from July 2016, ‘Bouncing Bob’s’ deviant daughter’s attempt to claim she’d distanced herself from the croaked paedophile after his 2008 jailing were laid out.

In them, Miss Maxwell suggested that Epstein had “become more difficult to work with” and when asked to be more specific added: “Just general. Just doesn’t work.” Going further, she bleated: “[I] ceased to be happy in the job and I ceased to be happy spending time with Mr. Epstein.”

Of learning of Jeffrey Epstein being an abuser, back then mendacious Maxwell unbelievably stated that she “had no memory of anything being amiss on his properties in the 2000s,” and threw in: “Like everybody else, like the rest of the world, [I knew of Epstein being a paedophile] when it was it was announced in the papers.”

Now, Ghislaine – Please, pull the other one… Or, instead, get pompous PR peddler Brian Basham to do that for you.

Mendacious Maker-Up Maxwell – Ghislaine Maxwell pictured by the Wellington Arch at Hyde Park Corner on 8th June 2019. She visited London during attendance of the Cash & Rocket ‘charity rally’ but surprisingly the Duke of York found time to give this mendacious meddler an audience at Buckingham Palace also. Less than one month later, both their world’s unfolded.

Mendacious Maker-Up Maxwell – Another ‘connected’ person accused of making up things to distance themselves from their association with Jeffrey Epstein was financier and wannabe bidder for the British National Lottery franchise Leon Black (pictured right with Jeffrey Epstein left and Pepe Fanjul centre in 2005 in New York). In response, ‘Vanity Fair’s’ William D. Cohan remarked: “Nice try, Leon.”

January 31, 2021
Bombastic Basham Bashes Back

Brian Basham, PR peddler for mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell, suggests ‘Hunting Ghislaine’ podcast host John Sweeney is a drunk and someone he “despises”

In spite of “socialist and vocal republican” public relations peddler Brian Basham’s most determined efforts on behalf of one-time ‘Friend of Geordie’ (Greig) Ghislaine Maxwell, the unsealed reasoning as to why the mucky madam deservedly didn’t get bail showed his client to be nothing other than a liar and a deviant.

Now, in the wake of US District Judge Alison Nathan referencing Miss Maxwell as having shown a “pattern of providing incomplete or erroneous information to the court or to pretrial services,” bombastic Basham, himself, has plainly had a meltdown.

Yesterday, on Twitter, the “unceremoniously dumped by British Airways” Basham turned on the journalist and host of the widely acclaimed podcast Hunting Ghislaine, John Sweeney. In a tweet, the “longtime family friend” of the Maxwells remarked:

“It’s a very sad thing John. You’ve done good work in the past. Has drink got to you at last? If it has, do try AA. They’ve worked wonders for friend [sic] of mine. This work was terrific and I’m sorry to see you in the gutter.”

Going further of Sweeney referencing him on a “current list of people who don’t like me” that also included the Kremlin, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Evgeny Lebedev, Peter Mandelson, the Barclay twins, Richard Desmond, the Church of Scientology, the BBC’s management under Tony Hall and Tommy Robinson, Basham angrily added:

“Wrong word John. It’s ‘despise’ in my case. I despise you for coating your investigation [of Ghislaine Maxwell’s alleged crimes against child trafficked victims] with the slime of click bait untrue sensationalism.”

Miaow!

Pictured top: PR peddler for a mucky madam Brian Basham (left) and crusading investigative journalist John Sweeney (right).

Facebook: @TheSteepleTimes

Instagram: @TheSteepleTimes

Twitter: @SteepleTimes

After John Sweeney shared a “current list of people who don’t like me,” Brian Basham attempted to belittle him by suggesting him to be an alcoholic before adding he “despised” rather than “disliked” him.

Sweeney responded and thanked the PR peddler for his “kind compliment.” He added: “I like a drink but much more important to me is telling stories power and money don’t want told. Such as #HuntingGhislaine, our podcast on Ghislaine Maxwell. In which @brianbasham features.

Responses from other Twitter users included: “Well I would buy him a beer… A crate full.”

Another user added: “I’d rather be a piss-soaked, syphilitic tramp than work for the rotten to the core Maxwell family, like some pathetic sycophant.”

December 31, 2020
Randy & Mucky – Time to Face The Music

Time to face the music – Things are about to get a hell of a lot worse for ‘Randy Andy’ the Duke of York and the mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell – just as her feudal family crawl out of the woodwork and a silver-haired, Savile Row suited socialist PR man tries to get her out of the clink

On Saturday, we shared the most telling and cringeworthy quotes from the first unsealed 2016 deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell.

Aside from the fact that ‘Bouncing Bob’s’ deviant daughter claimed not to know what “sexual acts” were and asked for the “definition of a sex toy,” this grubby woman showed herself as a bit of a liar by repeatedly contradicting herself.

Miss Maxwell – who couldn’t remember being gifted a fancy car or two (as one naturally does) and whom claimed she had no idea as to how Jeffrey Epstein turned from a school teacher to living it big bollocks billionaire style – now, along with the Duke of York, faces worse still as lawyers for her alleged victim Virginia Giuffre are now seeking the unsealing of a second deposition given three months after the first.

Of this news, this morning The Sun reported that “a source close to the case” remarked: “Maxwell was asked to answer questions that she did not answer on the previous occasion. Prince Andrew did come up during the course of the interview.”

Elsewhere, yesterday, the Mirror showed further pressure piling on mucky madam Maxwell. They reported that French prosecutors have also launched an investigation into her activities alongside the equally repugnant alleged “gifter” of three French 12-year-old-girls to Jeffrey Epstein, still missing ‘model agent’ and alleged rapist and child procurer Jean-Luc Brunel.

Ludicrously, however, this morning, The Steeple Times can add that Maxwell’s relatives have been curiously emailing high profile contacts claiming that their sibling is “looking forward to her day in court” as it will “give Ghislaine the opportunity she requires to clear her name.” Of this a society source who contacted us remarked: “’Delusional’ and ‘deranged’ were the words that sprang immediately to mind when I received such. I did not reply and I did not join Donald Trump in sending good wishes.”

Plainly ‘Ghastly Ghislaine’s’ family are as crackers as her and elsewhere on Friday, The Telegraph announced that the once “unceremoniously dumped by British Airways” PR tittle-tattler Brian Basham – a bombastic beast known for his “devil-may-care attitude” to detail – has been recruited to run what he’s optimistically calling ‘Operation GGO’ or ‘Get Ghislaine Out of Jail.’ Frankly, this supposed “street fighter” of communications has got as much chance of that as Madeleine McCann turning up on Shergar the racehorse and this “socialist and vocal republican” may as well just quit whilst he’s still ahead.

Instead of moaning that she’s not allowed to wear a bra and complaining that she hasn’t got a desk, a computer and the vegan food she so craves, we’d suggest, it’s time Ghislaine Maxwell finally did the decent thing instead. This petulant pillock needs to face the music, save her victims from further distress and simply admit to her cacophony of crimes.

Facebook: @TheSteepleTimes

Instagram: @TheSteepleTimes

Twitter: @SteepleTimes

Randy & Mucky – Time to Face The Music – Not only does mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell face a trial in America, this grasping grinch is now also looking at potential charges for her grubby activities in France alongside fellow alleged paedophile procurer Jean-Luc Brunel.

Randy & Mucky – Time to Face The Music – Ghislaine Maxwell with Donald Trump. Will he be sending her any further ‘good wishes’? He’d instead probably do best to simply shut up.

Randy & Mucky – Time to Face The Music – In 1997, Brian Basham tried to “shrug off” the title of “former British Airways PR man” according to ‘PR Week’ magazine; in 2020, he’s definitely scraping the barrel in seeking to become “the man who tried to get the alleged paedophile procurer Ghislaine Maxwell out of the clink.” Here, in this YouTube clip from 2015, he speaks at a conference about government and finance.

October 26, 2020
Mucky Madam Maxwell Unsealed

Matthew Steeples selects some of the most telling and cringeworthy remarks from the newly unsealed 2016 Ghislaine Maxwell deposition

On Thursday, I ploughed through all 465 pages of the newly unsealed April 2016 deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell at the law offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner. After being promised lurid details of ‘Bouncing Bob’s’ daughter’s “wild sex life” and her lawyers claiming it’d “spread like wildfire across the Internet” (and thus prejudice her trial), overall it was just a bit of a damp squib.

Whilst the bombshells many were hoping for simply did not emerge and though most names redacted could easily be identified – Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton included – what the mainstream media avoided mentioning was that there were many telling remarks and many contradictory statements in the unsealed document.

Mucky Madam Maxwell Unsealed – Ghislaine Maxwell with her chum Prince Andrew and accuser Virginia Giuffre at her London home. During the deposition, Miss Maxwell referred to Ms. Giuffre as a “liar” hundreds of times.

Aside from the fact that ‘Grubby Ghislaine’ clearly illustrated she has her late conman father’s temper in an episode of table thumping, Miss Maxwell’s evasiveness in avoiding giving straightforward answers was transparent. She also showed her own true character and also illustrated the lengths she would go to protect the late Jeffrey Epstein.

With the public set to see this mucky madam on trial next year, we can now anticipate the approach this devious devil will take. It’ll be bombastic and bold, but she’ll unlikely be doing anything that puts her great mate, the non-sweating, Pizza Express loving royal, at risk – that’s for sure.

Here below, we select a few of the amusing and strange questions and quotes from what was unsealed:

Ghislaine Maxwell gets questioned about a John Bryan – Duchess of York-esque ‘toe sucking’ equivalent incident:

Q – “Did you ever ask [Virginia Giuffre] to rub Jeffrey’s feet?

A – “I believe that I have read that, but I don’t have any memory of it.”

Asked about “sexual acts,” Maxwell – a woman well-known for teaching other women how to give blowjobs at dinner tables – unconvincingly answered:

A – “I don’t know what you mean by sexual acts.”

A – “I’ve never had non-consensual sex with anybody… At any time with anybody.”

Curiously defining her citizenships:

Q – “Are you a citizen of the United States?”

A – “I am.”

Q – “Are you also a citizen of England?”

A – “I am.”

Q – “Are you a citizen of any other land?”

A – “TerraMar.”

Q – “That’s the name of your charity project that deals with oceans, is that correct?”

A – “Yeah. I’m French as well.”

Bizarrely asked to define her own sex, Maxwell was honest in one regard:

Q – “Are you a female, is that the sex that you are?

A – “I am female… I am a 54-year-old woman.”

On sex toys:

Q – “How would you describe sex toys?”

A – “I wouldn’t describe sex toys.”

A – “I need you to define a sex toy, I don’t have enough knowledge of sex toys.”

On her and Jeffrey Epstein’s star-studded address book:

A – “I believe this a copy of a stolen document. I would like to know how you guys got it… You have the stolen document.”

A – “Like everybody, I have an address book.”

Put in her place by the interviewer:

A – “Let’s move on.”

Q – “I’m in charge of the deposition. I say when we move on and when we don’t. You are here to respond to my questions. If you are refusing to answer, the court will bring you back for another deposition to answer these questions. Do you understand that?”

A – “You have got your questions mangled… You have mangled your entire questions… I have to object.”

Q – “You don’t get to object… She is turning into a lawyer already.”

A – “I would like to.”

A – “I apologise sincerely for my banging at the table earlier, I hope you accept my apology.”

Asked if she was responsible for Jeffrey Epstein’s activities and actions, Maxwell replied:

A – “I’m not responsible for what Jeffrey does and I don’t always pay attention to what happens in the house. I’m very busy.”

On whether she ‘recruited’ girls for her boss/lover:

A – “Stop right there. I never recruited girls, let’s stop there. Break down the question.”

Q – “Have you ever said to anybody that you recruit females?”

A – “I don’t recruit anybody.”

A – “I resent and despise the word recruit… I never had to do anything with underage people.”

On whether she ‘recruited’ girls to take the sexual activity pressure off herself:

Q – “Have you ever said to anybody that you recruit other females… to take the pressure you having to have sex with Jeffrey?”

A – “I totally resent it and find it disgusting that you should use the word recruit. I have already told you I don’t know what you are saying and your implication is repulsive.”

A – “I never trained a female under the age of 18 at Jeffrey’s house.”

On her thoughts on the deposition process:

A – “You don’t ask me questions like that. First of all, you are trying to trap me, I will not be trapped.”

A – “Any interest I have is in accuracy. I’m only looking for accuracy.”

A – “Apparently, even saying Virginia is a liar has hazards.”

A – “You are trying to trap me.”

Asked about her interaction with naked people in Epstein’s residences, Maxwell brushed such aside:

A – “Sometimes… I have seen people from time to time take their top off. I have seen people from time to time do that.”

On whether she photographed naked people:

A – “It is possible that I took pictures of people that were somehow semi [nude] or had some clothes on or no clothes on, but at no time were any of those pictures remotely inappropriate… I know where you are headed with this and it’s nowhere appropriate and it’s really unattractive.”

Asked about her interactions with Virginia Giuffre – with whom she flew on private plans on at least twenty occasions and with whom she was pictured in her London home with Prince Andrew – Maxwell clearly lied:

A – “I don’t recall meeting her.”

A – “I wouldn’t recollect meeting her at all but for the tissue stories about this situation.”

A – “I really have no recollection of her.”

A – “I barely recall Virginia, period.”

A – “I don’t recall smoking cigarettes with Virginia Roberts.”

A – “Virginia is a liar… An exaggerator, a fantasist and an absolutely true terrible person.”

A – “I said that there are some things [Virginia] may not have lied about.”

On whether she had sex with Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Giuffre:

A – “I never ever, at any single time, at any point ever participated in anything with Virginia and Jeffrey. And for the record she is an absolute total liar and you all know she lied on multiple things and that is just one other disgusting thing she added.”

On whether she dined with Virginia Giuffre with Prince Andrew in London at Tramp:

Q – “Do you recall going to dinner with XXX, Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Roberts in London at any time?”

A – “I do not.”

Q – “Do you recall going to a place called XXX, XXX, Jeffrey Epstein and yourself and Virginia Roberts?”

A – “I would just like to state for the record XXXXXXXX I do not have any recollection of it and I doubt it happened.”

On whether Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre had sex in a bath at her Kinnerton Street, Belgravia, London home:

“The tub is too small.”

On whether she and Jeffrey Epstein gave Prince Andrew a Spitting Image puppet of himself and whether they got Virginia Giuffre to “play with him” whilst sitting on his lap:

A – “There was a puppet… A caricature of XXX.”

On Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual activity preferences:

Q – “Does Jeffrey like to have his nipples pinched during sexual encounters?”

A – “I’m not talking about any adult sexual things when I was with him.”

Questioned about the number of occasions she’d flown on the ‘Lolita Express’ and other Epstein planes:

A – “I cannot tell you how many, a lot.”

Asked about a 13-year-old victim of Epstein whom came to one of his residences:

A – “I have no idea how old she was… I have no idea… I don’t hire girls like that.”

Turning to a 14-year old:

Q – “Was she a child?”

A – “I don’t know what you mean if she looked like a child… Leave it at that… You are making stories up again as usual, there would not be any reason why I would ask her how old she was.”

On a total of 30 underage minors allegedly being brought to Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach house:

A – “I cannot testify to 30.”

On whether Jeffrey Epstein abused minors:

A – “I can’t testify what Jeffrey did or didn’t do.”

A – “I never observed Jeffrey having sex with a minor.”

Q – “I’m asking what you believe, from your own belief, do you believe that Jeffrey Epstein abused minors?”

A – “I can only go from what I know personally about what Virginia’s lies talked about. She is the only person I know that actually claimed that. And I can say with certitude that everything Virginia said was a lie.”

A – “I don’t believe [Jeffrey Epstein] was sentenced for [sexual abuse of a minor] actually.”

Asked if she’d ever seen Jeffrey Epstein – with whom she had an intimate relationship with herself – having sex:

A – “I have never seen anybody have sexual intercourse with Jeffrey, ever.”

On whether she was ever in a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein herself:

A – “That’s a tricky question. There were times when I would have liked to think of myself as his girlfriend.”

A – “I don’t think I said I was his girlfriend.”

A – “I don’t think I would ever have characterised myself as his girlfriend.”

A – “I’m sure I would [have] loved anybody to come out and say they were Jeffrey rather than me.”

On whether she was asked to ‘carry’ a baby for Jeffrey Epstein:

A – “I don’t recollect conversation about Jeffrey and babies in any form… I don’t recollect baby conversations with Jeffrey.”

Asked if she’d ‘organised’ for Virginia Giuffre to have sex with others:

A – “I have never instructed Virginia to have sex with anybody, ever.”

On allegedly dressing Viriginia Giuffre up as a school girl when giving massages:

A – “I have no idea what you are talking about… I have no idea what you are talking about… I clearly know what a school girl outfit is. I have no recollection of providing anybody with a school girl outfit.”

On President Clinton being on ‘Paedo Island’ with Virginia Giuffre and herself and whether Jeffrey Epstein dined with him:

“Virginia is absolutely, totally lying. This is a subject of defamation about Virginia and the lies she has told and one of [the] lies she told was that President Clinton was on the island where I was present. Absolutely 1,000 per cent that is a flat out total fabrication and lie.”

“Allegations that XXX had a meal on Jeffrey’s island is 100 per cent false… I’m sure he had a meal on Jeffrey’s plane.”

On why she kept in touch with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction:

“I’m a very loyal person and Jeffrey was very good to me when my father passed away and I believe that you need to be a good friend in people’s hour of need and I felt that it was very thoughtful, nice thing for me to do.”

On how much she got paid and what benefits she received post Epstein’s conviction:

Q – “Were you paid over a million dollars?”

A – “It was under 500, it was an amount of money less than $500,000, less than a million dollars and I did it out of thoughtfulness and consideration for somebody who was in trouble.”

A – “I don’t recall the details of the cars [I was given].”

A – “I don’t recall any gifts really… I barely recall gifts, I barely recall a lot of this.”

On her legal ‘arrangement’ with Jeffrey Epstein:

Q – “Do you have a joint defence with Jeffrey Epstein?”

A – “I believe I do.”

On her legal ‘arrangement’ with (presumably) Prince Andrew:

Q – “Do you have a joint agreement with XXX?”

A – “I don’t believe I do.”

On what dirt Jeffrey Epstein might have on her:

Q – “What negative, unflattering, private or potentially embarrassing information does Jeffrey Epstein know about you?”

A – “I imagine none.”

A – “I can’t think of anything I have ever done that is illegal… I have a DUI in the UK a long time ago.”

On where Jeffrey Epstein got his wealth:

Q – “Do you know how Jeffrey Epstein made his money?”

A – “No… I have no idea.”

On where she was then living:

“I’m just couch surfing.”

For more fascinating revelations about this ever-developing case, listen to the brilliantly put together The Prince & the Pervert Podcast’ by clicking here.

Facebook: @TheSteepleTimes

Instagram: @TheSteepleTimes

Twitter: @SteepleTimes and @M_Steeples

Mucky Madam Maxwell Unsealed – Ghislaine Maxwell with Jeffrey Epstein at a memorial event for her late conman father Robert Maxwell on 24th November 1991 at the Plaza Hotel in New York.

Mucky Madam Maxwell Unsealed – Ghislaine Maxwell is used to having things her way and here she is pictured in her youth tapping away at an early computer. In August 2020, she demanded the prison housing her give her another device and a desk also – her request was unsurprisingly denied.

October 24, 2020
Could Mark Alexander be Innocent?

With humanitarian Terry Waite questioning the safety of the conviction of the law student Mark Alexander for murdering his conman father Samuel in Buckinghamshire in 2009, is it time that this curious case was reviewed?

“Locking people up should be our last resort when all else has failed, not a knee-jerk reaction” concludes prisoner Mark Alexander in his two-and-a-half page contribution to The Monument Fellowship’s Crime and Consequence: What should happen to people who commit criminal offences? in September 2019.

In another paper, published by the University of Ottawa in December 2018 and titled A Phenomenology of Freedom: finding transcendence in captivity, the University of London law graduate added: “Prisons, like Jurassic Park, are anachronistic institutions. When ‘the owl of Minerva takes flight,’ our descendants will look upon the use of imprisonment with the same horror and shame with which we view slavery, torture, and the death penalty today.” One would expect such virtue signalling from someone who believes they’ve been wrongly imprisoned, but now, with new evidence available, we join those asking: “Could Mark Alexander have actually been wrongly convicted of the murder of his father Samuel Alexander?”

Mark Alexander was found guilty of the murder of his “controlling” father on a date unknown between September 2009 and February 2010 “by a majority verdict and on the basis of circumstantial evidence only.” He was imprisoned for life at the age of 22 in September 2010 and after refusing to take a manslaughter plea at trial, thus lost the chance for release for at least sixteen years.

In spite of no forensic evidence being found that linked him to his 70-year-old father’s killing and burial underneath a 29-centimetre thick slab of concrete in the garden of their Drayton Parslow, Buckinghamshire home, Mark Alexander was convicted on the basis of the evidence of “suspicious neighbours” and his strange behaviour after his father “disappeared.”

Without doubt, amongst other actions, sending Christmas cards with his father’s name on when he did not know his actual whereabouts made investigating officers suspicious of Mark Alexander, but now, ten years after his jailing, new evidence has come to light that raises issues about the safety of his conviction.

On the homepage of the ‘Justice for Mark Alexander’ campaign website, the issues with the verdict are surmised as follows: “Mark has always maintained his innocence… Mark was found guilty on the basis of doubt created about his version of events rather than any evidence of his involvement in a murder. No such evidence exists. There is no known cause, or date, of death – and there were no traces of DNA, blood, or even fingerprints linking Mark to the crime.”

This month, however, the Mirror’s Tom Pettifor and Robin Eveleigh highlighted other issues that have been discovered since sentencing, amongst them that “secretive” Samuel Alexander was in fact a conman operating with “at least eleven aliases.” Aside from a caution for shoplifting in 1995, however, the Egypt born pensioner was not convicted of crimes that numbered mortgage fraud involving a number of properties. The “confidence trickster” and “fraudster” undoubtedly had enemies and as his son told the paper: “Dad always seemed to be running or hiding from something.”

Using human rights laws, Mark Alexander was, in March this year, able to finally obtain files documenting his father’s multiple identities from Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. He became supposedly the first person in Britain to achieve such access and now also, according to the Daily Mail’s Alice Cachia and Robin Eveleigh: “[The Justice for Mark Alexander’ campaign] are also developing new mobile phone cell site evidence which they hope will provide proof of Alexander’s movements around the time of his father’s death.” They hint that this will show he could not possibly have been present at the time of the murder and burial.

Further highlighting the plainly deviant lifestyle of Samuel Alexander – a man described by Judge Reddihough at sentencing as someone who operated by “control” and “fear” – it has been revealed the pensioner spent “long hours on the computer surfing teenage chat rooms and sex websites, sometimes posing as a man in his late teens or early 20.” Could it be that he upset someone in the process and could they be his true killer?

Samuel Alexander lied also to his son about what had happened to his mother also and told him she had died of cancer. The pair were only reunited after Mark Alexander’s arrest and it can now be revealed he cheated her as part of a property scam also and of the case, the greatly respected humanitarian Terry Waite CBE has examined it also. He turned specifically to the way in which Samuel Alexander had been buried and remarked:

“I am disturbed by the conviction of Mark as I find it difficult to believe that a complete forensic examination was conducted before the jury found him guilty by a majority verdict. It was pointed out by the judge in his summing-up that the evidence was circumstantial, but even so he was convicted and sentenced.”

“A forensic investigation of the site was conducted by a chartered engineer and chartered geologist in 2017. This examination ought to have been conducted before the trial, but for reasons unknown to me it was not. Given that the site had been excavated by the police when searching for the body and afterwards refilled it was not possible for the expert to be totally certain about the dates when the different levels of concrete were laid. However, his conclusions, which are fully recorded in his report, suggest that the top level of concrete could not have been laid by Mark Alexander as he was not in that location at that time and can prove this. The report raises in my mind a reasonable doubt as to the safety of this conviction.”

Pictured top: Mark Alexander at his graduation ceremony with Terry Waite CBE.

Images: © freeMarkAlexander.org (CC BY-ND 4.0).

Further information about this case can be found at the ‘Justice for Mark Alexander’ Facebook group and in threads on the UK Justice Forum pages about the matter.

Facebook: @TheSteepleTimes

Instagram: @TheSteepleTimes

Twitter: @SteepleTimes

Mark Alexander and his late father Samuel Alexander.

The scene of the burial (but not necessarily the killing) of Samuel Alexander – 2 Prospect Close, Drayton Parslow, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, MK17 0JB.

An aerial shot of the property.

Documentary evidence of Samuel Alexander using aliases that show him to have been a man capable of perpetrating fraud and deception.

On Friday 28th September 2018, Mark Alexander played at a charity concert for The Howard League of Penal Reform at HM Prison Coldingley in Bisley, Surrey. Terry Waite CBE read from ‘Out of the Silence,’ his book about his 1,763 days in captivity from 1987 to 1991 in Lebanon.

May 25, 2020
The Baloney of Barrymore

Michael Barrymore’s bizarre rant prior to Channel 4’s documentary about the death of Stuart Lubbock proves him a lying maniac; the crazed nutjob has now also blocked ‘The Steeple Times’

During the screening of Barrymore: The Body in the Pool, the television personality India Willoughby announced to her 38,000 followers on Twitter: “I find Michael Barrymore as convincing as Prince Andrew.” She was 100% spot on and in the hours prior to the documentary airing, the vile concealer of the truth and disgraced entertainer piled yet more misery on the family of Stuart Lubbock – the victim of murder in his very own swimming pool – by taking to Instagram to pathetically moan that he was getting “bashed” and “bullied” by the media.

Barrymore (born Michael Parker) – a cretin who lied when he claimed he could not swim – went further in his 1:21 minute rant and aside from whingeing that he hadn’t (rightly) been given an advance viewing (since he refused to cooperate with the filming), this tawdry turd of a person delusionally announced:

“The truth is, I’ve always done everything asked of me… Watch the ITV interview with Piers Morgan [for which he was disgustingly paid £60,000]… He left no stone unturned… I have cooperated with everyone [one could add: “Apart from the police and the Lubbock family”] and I have had nothing to do with this [Stuart Lubbock’s death] whatsoever.”

Michael Barrymore took to Twitter and Instagram on Thursday afternoon prior to the airing of ‘Barrymore: The Body in the Pool’ to rant and rave about he was being unfairly treated. Diddums.

Anything but the “mansion” it gets lauded as, 4 Beaumont Park Drive, Roydon, Harlow, Essex, CM19 5HB – The grubby looking pool where one of those present at Michael Barrymore’s after-party of deviants murdered Stuart Lubbock.

Michael Barrymore – a man who cannot face people questioning his disgraceful behavior – has blocked both Matthew Steeples and ‘The Steeple Times’ on Twitter.

Essex Police is finally doing the decent thing and have issued a reward in conjunction with Crimestoppers to get “the breakthrough that we need” and justice for the Lubbock family.

The bombshell documentary itself was very painstakingly put together over 18 months and is a must watch. Of this well researched television show, on Twitter, one user, Michelle Gladstone, joined the many reacting with fury and remarked: “Watching this program [sic] is making my blood boil. Of those people at the party, at least one of them knows the truth about how Stuart died. How can they live with themselves, keeping the truth from the Lubbock family?” Another, Amanda Clarke, added: “How bloody dare Michael Barrymore blame NHS staff for that poor man’s injuries. Say what happened liar.”

Elsewhere on social media this morning, Barrymore has taken to blocking anyone who dares to question what went on on the 31^st March 2001. In doing so this scumbag simply yet again proves himself for exactly what he is: A shameless coward who now jolly well better man-up and answer the most important question of all: “Who present that night murdered Stuart Lubbock?”

To watch ‘Barrymore: The Body in the Pool’ on All 4, click here. Available for 30 days.

Pictured top: Michael Barrymore looking smug after filming an interview with Piers Morgan (for which he shamelessly nabbed £60,000).

Facebook: @TheSteepleTimes

Instagram: @TheSteepleTimes

Twitter: @SteepleTimes

February 7, 2020