JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, now, Miss Lindridge, I gather you want a witness summons, is that right?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, I mean I was told – I asked about some last week and nobody came back to me,  about something that had not been heard yet, and I understood that I could serve them up to 48 hours before.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  The rules provide that witness summonses must be served a week in advance. I think you will find that in the criminal courts it might be 48 hours but in the civil courts it is seven days.  That is Part 34 of the Rules. The reasons for that are simple. People just cannot be hauled up to Court to attend at the drop of a hat.  So you know the Rules provide that people should be given a reasonable period of notice. Who is it that you are wanting to summon to attend?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I have given  all the people notice.  Because of the problem with the original twelve summonses that were issued – and I spent £360 --  yet never had a hearing and that was on the 8^th August last year and only one of them turned up to Court. What I did this time round was I issued voluntary witness statements on the Court forms back in November. So I issued 69 of them and people voluntarily responded with eighteen of them at the time. Then once I had got a Court date – because there were lots of problems with the Christmas period – it happened at Christmas and the Courts were shut. I issued them again voluntarily, you know, straight after the New Year, on the 2^nd, with the voluntary request for them to be returned – because there was 50 of them – you know to be returned by - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You cannot have issued summonses in November because - - - -

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, I did.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  As I understand it, this case was not listed until after that, was it?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes,  but what I have been trying to do is to get, since the 8^th November, I have been trying very hard to get protection from this Court, the Ashford Court, and the Maidstone Magistrates Court, so to support that I issued the voluntary witness summonses at the time. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  There is nothing voluntary about a summons. It is a contradiction to say a “voluntary summons” because a summons means that you are directed to attend.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, except that the voluntary one in November had no date on it and it had no case numbers on it. It was just a voluntary request for people to comply and a number of people did comply. In fact inside one of those red bundles you have got No. 32 and No. 19 which were voluntary witness statements that people supplied.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  They made voluntary witness statements in answer to the questions that you asked them, but there is nothing voluntary about a witness summons. What I am getting rather concerned about in this case is that I have got a host of letters here from people – and legal advisors – saying, “We have received purported  summonses” – from you.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  “Which purport to come from this court.”

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  They do not.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: No, not they do not purport to come from the Court because there is a letter attached with them that says that they are voluntary.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I am sorry, but I will warn you, because this is quite serious, section 136 of the County Courts Act provides that  it is not lawful to deliver, or cause to be delivered, to any person any document which was not issued on the authority of a County Court which by reason of its form, or contents, or both, has the appearance as having been issued under such authority. The punishment is a fine.  Now you listen. We are getting people writing to this Court saying, “I have got this witness summons. I cannot attend. I am doing this, I am out of the country, I am doing that,” and they firmly believe that it is an official document.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: There are two samples in there.  You will see that on the samples in their styles, No. 19 and No. 32, it does not actually say that. I mean I have got letters that actually show that I have written to people saying that it is voluntary. I mean, I have had to shut my business because of the intimidation. I am not working.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You  have had to shut your business because it seems to me you are getting obsessed with Court proceedings, according to this. I mean, it does not take five minutes to put that together, it takes months.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, on the last trading day before Christmas, the Monday before Christmas, I had intimidation at my office. I made the decision to shut my business because of this.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Look, I have got here letters from various people saying – and some of them are solicitors – of course the solicitors pick up on the fact that these witness summonses are not validly issued.  Look. It makes it look like – that one does bear the stamp of the County Court.  Some of these documents are simply photocopies of the form used for witness summonses.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You are not allowed to do that.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: But it is voluntary - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That is not voluntary.  That is purporting to come from Maidstone County Court. Listen, I am not having this. This is very serious.   Sixty people have been sent documents on the basis that this County Court is issuing summonses and it is not. You know it is not and I know it is not.   But people firmly think that they are being obliged to attend.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I have not told anybody they had to attend unless it has come through the Court. I mean I spent £360 on the 8^th August last year issuing twelve witness summonses for a hearing in the Maidstone Court. Eleven out of the twelve people totally ignored it. The Judge, Judge Milward, directed that there would be a hearing. All those eleven did not turn up. But there never has been. I have not got money, because of all of this that is going on, to keep piling into the Court and not having any hearings.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You can have a hearing on Friday. I gather you are applying for an injunction and a breach of the injunction back in 1980.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Perjury from last year.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  This Court does not deal with perjury, but I  am afraid you may have some problems.  I have only been able to scratch the surface. Look, the fact is that you are swamping people with documents that purport to come from this Court. It is wholly inappropriate.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I do not want – you know I do not want to live in fear of my life or - - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  There is no useful evidence that most of them can give. I have seen the responses. Most of them have not seen you for twenty or thirty years.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: But a lot of the stuff goes back to that period of time.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  The first thing I need to see is the injunction that was granted in 1980. I have not seen a copy of it.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I asked the Court for a copy of it.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Apparently we destroy them when they are more than six years old.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: All right. I did not know that.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I am told that because that was the first thing. So you have got a mammoth problem there in proving that there was an order.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I have not got a mammoth problem because there is medical evidence in the file showing the date of the actual Court hearing.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That does not I am afraid – but that apart you also have taken twenty years before you have started to enforce that injunction.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: No, it is not just that one because I went to Court in October 2001 in relation to recent issues and I went to Court in front  of Nigel Peck on the 3^rd January - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Was the October 2001 hearing, the hearing that was struck out, because you had issued an action against him -- is that the one?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: No,  I first of all tried to issue proceedings, a private prosecution in the Maidstone Court, but they said, no, over the telephone and so I did not. So I came down here and what I wanted to do was make a public record of what he had done in the past and what he was doing at that time.  I thought by making  a public record of it that would stop him. What I had forgotten was that when I did that, back in 1980, he then went on and committed a serious crime. He came home and he told me about it. What happened on this occasion was that I did not find out about why the thing was struck out in October until I came down to the Court on the 13^th November, over another issue, and basically when I found it had been struck out I appealed. Now I should have got a hearing - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You were there.  You were there in front of District Judge Beach, were you not?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: No. DJ Milward struck the order out and I found out about it on the 13^th November. I appealed and my understanding of an appeal is that basically it should have been heard in front of the Circuit Judge.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:   Therefore, I still have not had a proper appeal hearing.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I had the hearing on the 3^rd January in front of the wrong level of Judge. I have evidence now of clear perjury in relation to serious criminal offences that were made at that hearing and made in a statement to the Court, by Nigel Peck, on the 30^th October.

JUDGE MITCHELL:   Let us just clear this up. Let us just clear the air.  Who were you wanting to summons at the moment? You are applying to issue a summons out of time.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, all right. I would like to summons – and they are all named in the statement that I have filed in Court.  The eleven summonses that have never had a hearing from the 8^th August 2002  because - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Which is that?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: It was in case CR005220. There are various doctors and medical people. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That has been struck out.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: No, it has not been struck out.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You cannot issue summonses for that. You want to come for Friday?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I am sorry, the ones that have been issued on the 8^th August of last year have not been struck out. Judge Milward ordered that they have a hearing. They have not had a hearing yet and that is - - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I  want to know who you want on Friday?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like on Friday, in addition to the eight ones that I have issued through the Courts, because there are eight that have been issued through the Courts, and served through the Courts, and service filed at the Court. I would like Dr. Tim Harland.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like Helen Penman. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  All right.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like Barbara Adams.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like Rob Venn.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like Chris Talbot.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like Tom Hezeldon, sometimes known as Hezelton.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I would like Simon Rossi and a passport to identify him.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Giles Smith.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Gary Spraggon.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Gary Spraggon?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Sergeant Salt. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Anna Preace.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: That is it. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Now, as I understand it, your application on Friday is to commit Mr. Peck for breach of an injunction which I have not seen but you say was made in 1980 or thereabouts?

MRS. LINDRIDGE :  It is not just the breach of that. It is the perjury from the hearing last year which I have not had a proper appeal hearing for in front of Judge Beach. It is the perjury that happened in the Court in relation to that, the documents he filed in Court denying those serious offences at that time and - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  We do not try perjury in the County Court normally because it is a criminal offence and the Crown Court, the next Court along, normally deals with  that.  So are you saying that you have appealed the order?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Have you filed a notice of appeal because I have not seen it?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I do not know. I cannot remember.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I have not seen a notice of appeal dealing with any order made, but we do not - - - -

MRS. LINDRIDGE: You have because the number of it is on here.  I actually --- yes, there is. There are eight pages in the file that are typed up that have got the MS102915 on it and it has got a notice of appeal with it.  I would also – under the Civil Procedure Rules – I would also request please that the matter in front of Peck I can have a jury, like it says on the Civil Procedure Rules, that I can ask to have a jury.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You have not sued him for unlawful imprisonment or anything like that have you? What actions have you got outstanding against Mr. Peck at the moment?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: That  my car was shot at on the 20^th December, as I was driving down the M20 after I had complied with DJ – I went – DJ - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Can I just cut this for the moment.   What I have got at the moment, what I understand to be happening on Friday – and I may be completely wrong – because I have not had a chance to wade through all this stuff, but it cannot possibly be relevant, quite frankly, is that you are saying he is in breach of an injunction that was imposed in about 1980. Is that right? You are applying for his committal to prison. I have seen an application to commit.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, plus he filed into the Courts that was perjury.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  We cannot do anything about that, as far as I can see.

MRS. LINDRIDGE:  If it is in the wrong Court you can make an order to put it to the right Court.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  It would be a matter for the police to investigate as to whether or not he  made a false statement.  Courts  cannot really deal with perjury unless it is a criminal matter. 

MRS. LINDRIDGE: On the 19^th December DJ Jackson at the Ashford Court instructed me to go and personally serve this application for an injunction on Nigel Peck and Charlie Fuller and I drove to Appledore and we found his address via somebody in a pub. We went and personally served it on him. Within a few hours of that a man turned up at my home, at night, and walked around in my garden in the same way I had walked into his garden, and twelve hours later a man was seen shooting at my car as it went down the M20. The mark in the roof – I mean it just missed my windscreen. The mark in the roof is of an air pellet. Now back in 1980 because I took him to Court – and he hates his public image and reputation being damaged – he went out and he raped another woman at shotgun point and he came home and told me.  He told me what he had done. I found a shotgun and a change of clothes, farming clothes, farming clothing, in the boot of his car. He told me that if I ever told anyone what he did to the woman, to the courting couple, with a shotgun, in Sandling & Borley Woods, he would rape and shoot me.  What happened after that was that he focused on trying to persuade me to commit suicide because he raped me. He knew I had been raped when I was 21. He knew that I became very upset by the rape and I took an overdose.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I am afraid so far I cannot see what this has got to do with anything apart from an application to commit him to prison as a result of - - - -

MRS. LINDRIDGE: There have been threats – and there is evidence filed into Court – there have been threats to rape on my website, threats to shoot both my kids, and me.   They are on the website. There are website details you have got there. My daughter is at University in Surrey. I have very serious concerns about Nigel Peck, that he did exactly the same this time, after I filed stuff into the Maidstone Court, that he went out and took part, either by himself, or with somebody else, with the rape of a little girl in Ashford. The photo fit that has appeared in the media is of him.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That is this recent case you are talking about?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: It is the little girl in Ashford. The trophy rapist.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Well, somebody has been charged with that, I am afraid, and he has already appeared at this Crown Court in front of His Honour Judge - - - - -

MRS. LINDRIDGE: All right, the guy that has been charged, Tony Amelia, was the photo fit from photo fit two which was of the tenth rape. The tenth rape being the girl in Herefordshire.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I think you can rest assured that he has been charged.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: You can rest assured that he is also a Health and Safety Manager and I have a Health and Safety business.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, all right, so you are wanting an injunction on Friday and you are wanting to commit him for breach of another injunction. What possible evidence can these people give that is of any relevance? Dr. Tim Harland?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Basically he spoke to me and it was a recorded telephone conversation in October 2001. He spoke about Nigel Peck and about the resurfaced trauma that was happening to me at the time as a result of criminal offences at my home in 2001.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  So he is a doctor of yours of some sort is he?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: He is a former GP. He is from the surgery, he is a former GP. He knows me. His wife knows me. Our kids went to Underhill together, but he told me that the conversation was tape recorded and the tape recorded evidence that Maidoc hold, and he holds, are evidence of trauma, trauma that was reactivated by crimes being repeated.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That has got nothing to do with breaching the injunction. The question is, did he do what you allege that he did, so quite what happens as a consequence is of no relevance so far as I can see.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Medical evidence - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Not to the Court.  The question is, did he do it, if he did, he is in breach of an order, if he did not, he is not.  So I cannot see how Dr. Harland’s evidence is of any relevance.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: It is because he is also from the same surgery that was involved in medical records in relation to Peck in 1980, the same surgery that is clearly not Tim Harland, nor his wife, Liz Harland, the same surgery that clearly has tampered with my medical records back in 1980 to protect Peck.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  What about Helen Penman, who is she?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: David Penman is a Consultant. David and Helen Penman bought my home off me. When there was a serious medical problem in relation to an operation that I had, which involved assaults, Helen Penman and David Penman received a phone call in the middle of the night from one Jonathan Goodman, Consultant, who had nothing to do with me, but decided to interfere in my medical case, a medical case surrounding, you know,  a near death experience for me. Helen Penman reported to me that they received a phone call in the middle of the night as a result of me being duped into handing over their home phone number, my old phone number, to a nurse in the BMW Summerfield and that they received serious intimidation from Dr. Jonathan Goodman to drop me as a patient. Whatever was said she told me that her husband, the good man, the gynecologist, who had helped me when I could not get out of BMW Summerfield, felt so worried and so frightened by what happened that he started looking for jobs overseas. He did as he was instructed and he dropped me as a patient. In fact he has never even charged me for the work he did but allowed me to be discharged from the Summerfield.  Now the - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  How is that relevant to committing your - - - -

MRS. LINDRIDGE: That is relevant because basically that ended up as a Court case, CRO55220, and in June 2001 there was a massive sort of struggle going on between my surgery and the BMI Somerfield, and this Court, about my pre 1990 medical records in relation to that - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  What has that got to do with Mr. Peck?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Because in that case, in the BMW Summerfield case, the Court got very heavily involved, as did solicitors, in actually getting hold of my pre 1990 medical records and editing them as part of that case. The Bearstead Medical Practice illegally sat on my medical records. Under the Access to Health Records you are entitled to access your records within 40 days. They would not let me have them within a year. Then when I put the Court application in I could get some of them. Then when I started to ask for my pre 1990 records they illegally sent them to a third party solicitor and wrote and told me that they had sent them to a third party solicitor. I came to the Court, in front of DJ Burgess, on the 24^th July 2001.  My legal advisor was barred. The Press were barred. DJ Burgess said that it was a private hearing. The tape was wiped so there is no tape record. During the hearing she told me – I said, “Why can I not access my medical records? You know, why will you not make an order? Who has got my medical records?” Prior to that hearing I saw my former solicitor, Furley Page, go into conference with DJ Burgess. Well, that is not legal to go into conference with DJ Burgess in advance of the hearing. In the hearing DJ Burgess told me that basically she knew they had illegally accessed my medical records at the Bearstead Medical Practice and it was Furley Page. Well, I had never given any written authority to either the Bearstead Medical Practice, or Furley Page, to access my medical records. They were illegally withheld from me and they were given to me. They were posted to me, Recorded Delivery, the day after that hearing. By the time I had got them all my medical records had been edited. The stuff in relation to John Pinchof, from my medical accident in 2000, and the trauma from Peck from 1982, had disappeared. They had gone. My medical records had been edited. They were withheld from me, from the hearing, they were returned to me edited, having gone to a firm of solicitors. I believe the firm of solicitors were illegally acting on behalf of Peck. There is not anybody else I know who would instruct a firm of solicitors to illegally acquire medical records that give evidence of criminality in relation to Peck.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  So on the surmise that the solicitors were acting on Peck’s behalf you would like Helen Penman to talk about a phone call that may have led to the falsification of your medical records. Is that right?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, it shows that there was something very odd going on. It is not normal for a Consultant, from Maidstone Hospital, for whom I was not a patient, to intervene in my medical case when the surgeons actually, Miss Henderson - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Who is Barbara Adams, the third one on your list?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Barbara Adams is somebody who my postman has intervened and identified as having intercepted Recorded Delivery mail from Companies House in relation to my charity, Patient Support, and that she illegally gained access to my business premises to siphon this Recorded Delivery mail. If I had not found out about the interception of three pieces of mail my charity, Patient Support, which has been set up to reduce the risk for children, and reduce the risk for patients, would have gone out of business. She was also aware, as were two other people, three people acted in a very odd way before John Pincher, the Psychologist, a trauma expert, recommended that I go to Bermuda for my health. Rob Venn tried to stop me from going and lobbied other people I worked with. Barbara Adams, and Tom Hezeldon, behaved as if they knew what was going to happen to me. They pressed me and became very aggressive and abusive to me about paying for invoices that were not outstanding before I went to Bermuda, which is very odd behavior. So we have got two people.  Tom Hezeldon I understand has got more than one surname because he is denied access to his three children. The police protect people who have convictions for anything to do with children and they change their name. His name is either Heseldon or Heselton. He has been involved as an independent safety advisor, as Tony Amelia, the trophy rapist, is a safety advisor, in trying to bring my business down and stealing my assets. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  What has that got to do with Mr. Peck?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: There are two photo fits of the trophy rapist.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  What has Hazelton got to do with Mr. Peck, whether he is called Hezeldon or Hezelton?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Because about 22 safety advisors have been receiving more than one fee. I have been paying them to work for me and they have been earning an extra fee by doing negative things, and destructive things, to my business. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  What about Chris Talbot. He is there as well. He is in the same boat, is he?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, Chris Talbot is my former neighbour in insurance like Nigel Peck. My former neighbour from Barley Fields, who lives next-door to the Penmans. I issued him a voluntary witness summons in November and then again on the 2^nd January.  He is witness to some extreme terrorization at my home, that affected me, and my daughter, in August 1987, with two men with knives at my kitchen window and they were tormenting my daughter at her window. The police came. The road was road blocked and I ended up going into the Talbots, with the police, in relation to that incident. I got - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  What has that got to do with Mr. Peck?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I have got very serious concerns that that incident, which I did not actually understand at the time, and I have in the last two months acquired a book called “Unexplained Kent”. It has a section on unexplained murders. I am extremely concerned about  a trophy murder in June 1987 of Wendy Knell because I actually understand the trophies that took place in relation to that murder – because they depict both me, the first one with Nigel Peck, and Anna Preace, the second one, Nigel Peck. I am actually wearing one of the trophies in my marriage, it symbolized me, the cow, it was Austrian cow bells. It was a symbol of ridicule. In the murder of  Wendy Nell, which I have concerns about, there is reference to, very specifically,  the Austria cow bell, and also I have given you a medallion there. When Peck was made to leave, after I nearly died – the other trophy related to a medallion, a medallion that had “Woman of the Year” on it. Now that is not me because I was not Kent Business Woman of the Year at that time. What “Woman of the Year” relates to is his second wife, Anna Preace, who was his alibi on the night he tried to kill me. Anna Preece was a journalist. She wrote a woman’s column for the Evening Post as part of the KM. Anna Preace also wrote for Woman Magazine and they had, at that time, a feature, “Woman of the Year”.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  She cannot say anything apart from what she was told.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I am sorry?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  She cannot say anything part from what she was told, can she, which is not admissible.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Anna Preece?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: No, Anna Preece has got evidence into when she met him, where she met him in Sandling, where she walked in Sandling, the time she met him. The time differences being after the rape of the woman with the shotgun in Sandling & Borley Woods. After that rape he took up with her. He invited her into our home. He used her as an alibi as he left me to overdose, as he went out with her. It was when I came back the following morning, having been to hospital, the police had been round, and made him move out. He moved out quickly. In his haste to leave – I did not find out for several months – that he had left trophies behind. There is evidence that is filed into Court that he stalked me. He stalked me alone and also with a man in a car. I already knew he had a shotgun in the boot.  I already knew he threatened to shoot me, and rape me, if I ever told anybody else, but after he moved out on the 4^th September 1980, and the Kent Messenger appeared on the 5^th September 1980, there were more incidents of sexual attacks against women and children in the area. I thought I was safe by the fact he had moved out. I rang Maidstone Police and I told them about what he told me he had done to the courting couple and the woman he had beaten and raped in Sandling & Borley Woods.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, all right.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I told them that. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  All right, number seven, Simon Rossi. He is the private investigator you say?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: He is part of Rossi Harley. There is Simon Rossi and another Ron Harley.  On the 10^th June, of last year, Circuit Judge Cryan gave me an injunction - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I have not seen a copy of that. Where is it?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: If it’s not in there, it is over in the Medway Court. There is a hearing against him next Monday. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  What was the basis of that injunction?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Death threats. I mean, after the hearing in front of District Judge Beach Simon Rossi started harassing me, making nuisance calls, issuing death threats. It went on.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  How is that relevant to what Mr. Peck allegedly did, both back in 1981 and 1982, and then in 2001 and 2002?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Simon Rossi, at the time of the hearing in front of Circuit Judge Cryan, there was no identification of who Simon Rossi’s client was as to how he was issuing death threats to me against, but, on the 18^th November – I mean my car has been tracked. I have got a photograph filed into the Court of a tracking device that was found next to the wreck of my car on the 20^th February of last year.   The way the tracking device works is that you can buy it off the Internet. It is called Carbug . You cannot find it when they put it in a car. It is like a modern day form of stalking.   What you actually do is you put it in a car, you need two men, you need somebody with an Internet connection, and a laptop, because they can actually see where your car is, if it is moving, where it is, anywhere in Europe.  You have somebody else on a mobile phone. Now on the 18^th November Dover Magistrates’ Court sent me – and my assistant Charlene Fuller – to the Folkestone Magistrates Court. I went to the Folkestone Magistrates Court for 10 o’clock on the 18^th November 2002. I got there at the start. I knew the people. I saw the people there at the start. I was due to go into Court 1. I did go into Court 1. A man came into Court 1 to listen to the hearing. Charlene Fuller was there, I was there, and this man he sat in front of Charlene Fuller. At this hearing papers were laid in front of three Magistrates. The only verballed thing that I actually spoke about that was of interest to this man, the only thing I said at all, was that I was asking for private prosecution against Nigel Peck. I spoke about the rape of me, the rape in Sandling & Borley Woods, and my serious concerns about the rape of the little girl in Ashford.   When I came out of the Court hearing this man was behind me. He was following me around where I was with two phones. I was on my mobile phone and I was ringing Maidstone Magistrates Court and speaking to Quinton Morton. This man was listening to my conversations and following me around. As we started to move he went to the window to watch where we were moving. So I went back and I spoke to him.  I recognized his voice. It was a private detective. I asked him who he was. He told me that his name was Bill Hanking, or “Wanking”, if you go W-h-a-n-k-i-n.  “Whankin”.  Now there are obscene and disgusting messages that are put on my Patient Support website that coincide with that hearing with names that  are similar to “Wanking”. There are poison pen letters, “Dr. Arseholes”, “Trickster”, stuff like that that coincide with these hearings, coincide with what I have been doing since the 18^th November. You have got filed into Court details of these obscene messages on my Patient Support website. I have taken a lot of them off, but there are quite a few still there. There are rape videos and references to my daughter, who is at Surrey University. There have been three assaults that have not been reported in the media, right near where she lives. She is absolutely terrified at Surrey University. In one of the trophy rapes there is actually a situation whereby my daughter looks just like me. It was reported in the media that basically you know after all the trophy rapes one of these trophy rapes, one of these two trophy rapists, phoned the mother and said, “I have just raped your daughter.” Now I know the way Peck projects. I know the way he does things. I have serious concerns that the whole series of trophy rapes, that started on the 1^st July, were actually triggered by somebody who had been protecting me and June, quite innocently. Somebody spent 24 hours a day with me, a guy called David Stanley, between April and June, he was with me 24 hours a day.  He has a very distinctive blue Shogun car. By a bizarre coincidence he started dating somebody from the end of June, who lived in Appledore, whose son, Jamie, is in the same class as Peck’s daughter. In the same way Peck has – you know I have become a victim of crime when I started visiting Appledore, quite innocently – not knowing that he lived there in 1993 – and I can prove that – and I have proved that. I believe that it is quite a coincidence that the whole series of rapes started on the 1^st July after Dave Stanley started dating somebody, in Appledore, whose son is in the same class as Peck.   I mean, there was – the Press were offering – when Amelia was arrested Meridian TV came over and interviewed me. BBC TV came and interviewed me.  News of the World did too. They all believed that Peck had been arrested. They were shocked that a neighbour of his, 400 yards away, photo fit two, rather than photo fit one, had been arrested. There was £100,000 reward put out by the Press for a current photograph of Peck. The photographs I have got that show that he fits the trophy rapist and dozens upon dozens of business people,  and policemen, have seen it, and think it is a very close fit because the photo fit number one was of an eye witness at the Ashford scene. I would have to ask the Ashford scene in Stanhope -- which is a working class area. You know, what is a bloke, resembling – looking like Peck – doing in a working class area, at night, wearing a wooly hat? I have to ask that.  You know, it is the same as what happened in 1980.  I went in front of the Court and he raped a woman. I went in front of the Court in November and a little girl got raped. I rang up the police the next day. I said I feel so guilty. You know that little girl has been raped and I think in trying to protect me and my children - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Let us stick to the point. We seem to have lost it. There are three witnesses left. Giles Smith, Gary Spraggon and Sergeant Salt.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: And Anna Preece.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Quite frankly some of the allegations you are making, if we were not protected by Court being protected from proceedings for defamation, I think you would be seriously in difficulties.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I am sorry, but the witnesses that are coming on Friday will actually substantiate what I am saying. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  So far none of them substantiate anything in my judgment, but I will deal with it in due course.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes, all right.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  None of the witnesses – Giles Smith, Spraggon, and Sergeant Salt.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Giles Smith – in front of Judge Milward there has been a hearing against Giles Smith  -- Giles and Owen Smith live in Sandling.   I found out by accident, by being in Sandling at the weekend, that they live next-door, and were living next-door, to where the woman was raped in 1980. Giles Smith approached my business for work in 2000. He obtained work from me - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  What has a woman being raped in 1980 got to do with a breach of the injunction that you took out against Mr. Peck?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Well - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  It has not got anything to do with it. That is the answer.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Please, can I just explain a little bit more?  The work that Giles Smith did related to my Patient Support website. He actually sabotaged it and Judge Milward found him guilty of it.  Now at the weekend I was distributing stuff in Sandling, asking for more witnesses to come forward to the incident in 1980. I did not deliver anything to the Smiths, but what actually happened, the people who had been helping me received nuisance calls that terrified the disabled lady, Mrs. Taylor, Mrs. Valentine Taylor. She received two of them. Her husband – I have got the mobile message with me here – has sent me a text message saying that he followed up the belief that the Smiths were behind the threats to him and his wife for helping me and he has found that to be true.  Gary Spraggon is the driver of the car that wrote off my stationary car on the 20^th February 2002, the one that a tracking device was found next to. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  How does that affect Mr. Peck?  Your application on Friday is for an injunction against him  -- and it is also for an order for his committal – how on earth does Mr. Spraggon, running into your car, have anything to do with Mr. Peck?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Two Managing Directors, Freemason Malcolm Denyer, from Kent First Aid Supplies, and David Stanley, Managing Director of PES Limited, in Maidstone, had previously filed witness statements into the Maidstone Court that having examined the evidence of the car crash, and the photographic evidence, and everything else, that they believe that it was an attempt on my life.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  How does Mr. Peck fall to be blamed for that?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Because he retaliated against me after the hearing back in 1980. There were the threats from the private detective upon my life. I will tell you that Judge Beach ordered that I pay £1,000 in costs to Peck.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, I saw that.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I did not have enough evidence until I met Freemansons – decent Freemasons, like Malcolm Denyer – to actually start to put things together in a way that I could actually do something with. I met him at the end of January at an event where a brick had been thrown through the window. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  What about Sergeant Salt anyway?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: I mean, people do not attempt to, you know, write off somebody’s car  unless they are paid to do it. I do not know anybody else that would be motivated to kill me. What actually happened was that when my car was written off with me in it I was parked and stationary and I was talking on the phone to a manager/client at Seaboard who heard me say, “Why are you hitting me?” He dialed 999. At that point Medway Police went racing up to my offices in Lordsworth, not knowing that I had  my phone on divert to my mobile in Maidstone. They broke in and they started a two or three hour search for me, believing that I had been abducted like I had been abducted the year before.   They had told me that they had filed concerns with the National Intelligence Unit in January of last year that I am the victim of organised crime.    Now the PC that was dealing with that was PC Salt. Previously, in October 2001, I had been to see Sergeant Salt over concerns in relation to Nigel Peck. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  So he would tell us what you told him?

MRS. LINDRIDGE: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Right.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: And Anna Preace - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  We know about Anna Preece. She worked for a magazine. 

MRS. LINDRIDGE: She was his second wife but she was also a - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  His second wife? I did not know that.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: The second wife.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, all right. 

MRS. LINDRIDGE: He briefly married her. I mean I was given a quick whatever divorce so that he could briefly marry her. I cannot find her. I have written to his solicitors, a couple of times, asking if they could find her, but I have actually eight properly served witness summonses for people to attend on Friday. The witness summonses will actually confirm what you say is defamation. They will actually confirm what I have been saying is the truth.     Also there is an Inspector, Gary Smith, at Professional Standards, who has been instructed to work with me on the back of complaints from many police officers, all over Kent, that my police records have been tampered with over the last 22 years and edited in order to protect Peck. My medical records have been edited to protect Peck. Now I have got a meeting with Inspector Gary Smith, with David Stanley, on Tuesday of next week, and basically we are going to sort out – I have got an application before the Court that is yet to have a hearing. I have asked under the Data Protection Act for a Court approved record of my medical records. I have asked for a Court approved Police record as well. Gary Smith, Detective Inspector Smith, is working with me to recompile edited records of my Kent Police records of crimes against me and my family.  Somebody has been editing them in the same way that somebody has been editing medical records in relation to Peck. That is another application. You know a court approved statement under the Data Protection Act  was allowed by the Information Commissioner to have court approved records of my medical records that include those that have been withheld by John Pinchall, those that have been altered, those that I still have not got, from July 2001, to October 2001. My surgery refused to give me records. I went to see them about traumas I was experiencing in relation to Peck between the 15^th July and the middle of October. When I asked for them they struck me and my children off.  We no longer have a GP.  We were struck off in October 2001. Tim Harland was a witness to that. I spoke to him at Maydock the day that happened about the trauma -- about the striking off -- about the fact that myself and my children were illegally struck off, and are still without a GP in order that my GP did not put into writing or give me copies of medical records that relate to the BMI Summerfield when a needle was illegally dropped into my back, and I was illegally given injections, and assaulted, and

Peck -  - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, all right.

MRS. LINDRIDGE: But the eight witness summonses that have been properly served will actually prove – and I will swear on oath now – I am quite happy if you have got a Bible, I will stand up there and I will swear on oath that everything that I have been saying is the truth. I am no longer working because the Balfour Beatty employee was the last straw. I suspect – because of the connections – that you will find the trophy rapist, Tony Amelia, the health and safety advisor for a rail company – is associated with Balfour Beatty Rail.   I know that the intimidation that I got – and I have a witness to the intimidation I got on the last day before Christmas was from a Balford Beatty employee, a client of mine who gained access, without my permission, to my premises, via Charlene Fuller, and started harassing and intimidating me. We had to push him off the premises. He then spent fifteen minutes blocking my car in. He is not the only person to do that. John Pinchof has sent somebody around to my premises and done the same thing, and illegally blocked my car in, and intimidated me. Two witnesses, one from Euro Tunnel, a manager, and one from Peri Limited, a manager, have provided witness statements to the police about the intimidation at my business premises from agents of doctors, doctors whose medical records, if they were to give them to me, would provide evidence against Peck.

(Judgment then given :  please see separate transcript)

This is to certify that pages 1 to 17  have been produced according to the procedure set out in the AVTS Quality System.

Signed:                              (Christine Kriehn)

1134/H1899