|
1 – The Police
As I add to this public ‘bringing to the light’ of evidence, I wish to highlight the different sections of our Justice System and how they have operated.
1st I am dealing with the Police (though as will be seen the others are ‘touched on’ as they are inter-related). To this end – following my preliminary introductions and latest update - I am producing my cover letter and complaint presented to the IPCC: this and all associated constitute my 1st upload of information.
Latest update
Monday 14th November 2011 - I received an email and attachment from Sergeant Richard Steadman of the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) to whom all complaints submitted to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) get passed. The Sergeant was notifying me of intent to ask the IPCC to dispense with the complaint as elements relate to more than 12 months prior to the complaint. I have written on the same day to the IPCC to refute such a suggestion.
Preliminary introduction
First by way of introduction, a message of comfort:
On 29th September 2011 I wrote the following update on my Facebook page:
“Back in the late 80s I was at a ‘Men for God’ conference held at Manchester uni Hosted by Good News Crusade: the main speakers were Don Double, David Pawson and Johnny Barr. Just before the last seminar of the Saturday we had a coffee break. I sat there next to a friend and the prayer coordinator for the GNC team was handing out brochures for future events. I went to shake his hand as he passed by... and in the close proximity of the chair layout we were too close and we shook each other's wrists. Which is where it got interesting: he then asked me who I was and explained that a couple of hours earlier he got a picture of the Lord holding someone by their wrist as we just had. So he asked me to hold his wrist again, so I did. He then said "Let go of your hand". I did hesitantly and then he said I believe the Lord wants you to know, you're going to go through some things and you're going to wonder "What's happening?" and the Lord wants you to know He's holding on to you... About 2 weeks later a pastor was visiting and as he left the house he said I've got a verse for you Jacques: the last one in Matthew ‘I am with you always’. Isn't God awesome in providing a store of comfort ahead of time!”
This tangible message of comfort ahead of time has been that to me in prison, and other situations that have been a result of holding steadfast to truth.
Complaint Form and My accompanying letter of complaint to the IPCC
Text complete of both
Throughout I will scan and publish the documents and link them to the text in these and associated pages. Thus the contents can be read easily whilst the originals can be seen separately.
Complaint Form – Summary of Complaint Text
Begin Quote
My complaint relates to individual Officers and senior Officers who have instructed junior Officers.
Some of these are known, others are unknown – In effect Attempts to pervert the course of Justice has been the outcome.
In the practise of the Met thereby this complaint relates to recognition of a serious or organised moral corruption: deliberate and persistent failure to practise the oath of impartiality.
All this has occurred through the refusal to investigate and thus confirm evidence/information provided as promised; to not record and relay information provided; to refuse to investigate crimes informed of; to suppress evidence or deny the existence of evidence or deliberately refuse to access information provided to colleagues or command others to do so; etcetera…
In all seriousness, due to letters to Croydon’s Borough Commander, then junior Officers, then the Met. Commissioner having failed to investigate my claims, only a determined investigation from outside of the ‘circle’ of Officers previously involved can verify the facts here.
4 Page letters attached + 15 further documents/s marked AA to OO
End Quote
Scan of complaint form
Full text of Complaint letter – 4 pages
IPCC
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
Complaint relating to Met Officers
21st October 2011
Dear Case Officer,
I trust this letter finds you well.
I write this letter to accompany the complaint form.
First please allow me to say I am disappointed and saddened that I am to involve the IPCC. I had hoped and worked over many months to see a way forward more directly, but to no avail. I am thoroughly aggrieved and upset at the state of what is otherwise one of the world’s best Police Services. When I hear of Police corruption my mind goes to bribes and 3rd world countries and misuses of power, but my witness in my own country which upsets me is a state of moral corruption where the Force displays regular cynicism of the human character and appears unable to identify the innocent and most certainly does not operate with impartiality, but instead acts regularly as agents for the prosecution by default.
There is so much involved in this situation, so many officers, senior and junior, that I thought here to provide an introduction and notes for the accompanying attachments.
Perhaps a fast introduction is best served by initially reading my letter to the Crown Court Judge of the 14th August 2011 AA. This summarises the present and puts most things into perspective.
PC Steve Bowler P221258 and an unnamed Senior Officer
Then next best to read is a summary of failed Police investigation within my letter to the Magistrates sent 30th June identified with “Ref: R. v. More 27th May 2011→” BB. This pulls together and quotes with clear references the many mentions made to many Officers: things not investigated (I enclose with this cover letter a limited amount, so the references help you in any further research you may wish to pursue). The last of these mentions being PC Bowler: having been presented with the information that I had made numerous communications to the Police in the preceding months at interview on the 27th May 2011, he not only did not enquire into details, but as he said at the charging desk and in the hearing of the custody sergeant PS Chapman P200553 and also later in court, he asked his superior if he should look into these communications and was told not to. The Superior was not identified. This Magistrates letter complements the one to the Judge and is also mentioned therein. In particular it identifies the failure to investigate the lying of Kelly Culverhouse caused under duress by her father. I am therefore adding and expanding information in this regard to demonstrate this has always been the case (expanding on the reality of this persistent practise):
I enclose for this a full print-out of my email to CSSU at met.police.co.uk dated 01 April 2011 18:20 subject “Part 2 of Your Ref: RD 46891 + further report of crimes to investigate” CC – Here is proof positive that Kelly Culverhouse is involved in deliberate false statements (lies) which are indeed intrinsic in all her public, Police and Court communications due to her operating out of fear of her Dad. One quick example amongst many: Kelly states in the article quoted - and backed as accurate by her on a read back - that our employer contacted the Police whilst in reality Kelly is the only one who has involved the Police.
Also related to this is the idea that I was sacked by the employer because of ‘harassing Kelly’ which is untrue. This is believed and reported by PC Bowler in his compiling of a bad character report dated 21st June 2011 DD which I would like to address further about other matters – see below. This report states “MORE was fired by his empoyer due to repeated attempts to ask VIW out for a drink.”
To deal with this false statement, I enclose with the bad character report, my dismissal letter dated 22nd May 2007 EE (despite many errors in that document, the reason for dismissal is undisputed) and the offer by the employer to walk away with £6794.76 without blame to me or the company (dated 18th April 2007 FF). I refused this offer due to the plot by managers which had caused the whole mess and they could do this to others if unchecked. I also enclose “A résumé of certain events since 2007” – “Typed up January 2009” which explains these things as they were up to that date GG.
Since I mentioned the Police communications on the 27th May 2011 in my interview with PC Bowler and this included my “reasonable excuse” comprising not only evidence that Kelly has been lying (as shown by her backing of the fabricated article full of lies), but also what her true interests are as per the print-out of the attachment to my email to CSSU at met.police.co.uk 01 April 2100 13:30 Subject: “Your Ref: RD4691 + further crimes to investigate” HH This is Kelly’s contacts with me in December 2010 (+ another example not added before II). These two sources of information – proof of Kelly’s lies and proof of her interest - together with my persistent appeal to the Police to investigate Kelly ‘s fear of her Dad constitute my full “reasonable excuse”. The act of breach of injunction within the context of that reasonable excuse was to warn Kelly by letter via a 3rd party (Alan Culverhouse has full access to Kelly’s computer) to warn of the impending contact – discreet as requested by the Police - following my meeting with Mr Gavin Barwell MP on the 20th May 2011. He promised to make progress with the Borough Commander where my attempts had failed. My arrest on the 27th stopped that.
PC Bowler on being informed (and on tape) that I provided this “reasonable excuse” in prior communications never investigated this information provided to the Police and instead (as mentioned above) says that he was told by an unnamed senior officer not to look into that. I was therefore charged with “breach of injunction without reasonable excuse”. This action is a clear-cut refusal by an Officer/Officers to act with impartiality. Isn’t this an attempt to subvert the course of justice by suppression of evidence?
DC Nigel Abbott
Next I propose a read of my letter to the Magistrates written 27th August 2011 JJ as this clarifies and identifies the suppression of evidence by the Bench in Court on the 2nd April 2008 as referred to in my letter of 23rd June 2010 to the Croydon Borough Commander Adrian Roberts. This clear act of attempting to subvert the course of Justice by suppressing evidence has yet to be investigated. The written version of the Bench’s judgement (copy provided to the Commander) is a fabrication and contrary to the verbal judgment made on the 2nd April 2008 and is an attempt to ‘cover up’ thereby the suppression of evidence mentioned in the 27th August letter. The connection with DC Abbott is that he interviewed both Mr Featherstone and Mrs Howell and could have asked them the question and avoided the 1st charge altogether. Kelly’s statement that I repeatedly approached her at work after the 1st ‘complaint’ at work is completely false and this was confirmed in Court by these 2 witnesses. This is common sense since Kelly made that statement 2nd August 2007, DC Abbott then interviewed me 21st August 2007 when I clearly said further approaches never happened and the matter could have been proved at interview with Mr Alan Featherstone’s interview of 11th October 2007 and Mrs Jeanette Howell’s interview of 30th October. But worse, irrespective of that common sense, I outlined to DC Abbott a plot by these two managers and who to question in this regard. He promised me verbally following the 3 taped interview that he would investigate that and talk with these witnesses. There is no evidence that he ever has. He fulfilled neither of those promises.
PC Patrick Morgan P217247
So that when PC Patrick Morgan took over the investigation not only was he not told this was not investigated, but PC Morgan did not listen to the taped interview. The transcript does not do the tape justice. But, due to the honesty of PC Patrick Morgan on the stand – he thoroughly blushed on hearing the tapes – he then testified that the plot by Mr Featherstone and Mrs Howell had not been investigated and none of the witnesses were approached whom DC Abbott had promised to speak to. It was not least because of PC Morgan’s honesty that I was encouraged not to complain before now: PC Morgan is the only person who with me told the whole truth on the stand at the 1st trial. However I did write to PC Morgan as mentioned in the 1st letter to the Magistrates above – and that before I was ever charged – asking him to look into Kelly being influenced by her Dad. This has never been done in any manner that Kelly could feel safe to speak the truth.
DS Kenny Windsor
On my attempts to encourage the Police to investigate following my letter to the Croydon Borough Commander Adrian Roberts of 23rd June 2010, this lack of investigation confessed by PC Morgan on the stand was totally denied by DS Windsor in his letter of the 2nd September 2010. DS Windsor evidently failed to look impartially at the evidence I presented in regards to the Magistrates. He did nothing more than re-hash paperwork in the building and nothing was investigated to confirm my claims. He was the Officer on whose desk my correspondence with the Commander arrived to be investigated.
Unknown Officers back in 2002
My latest shock at the state of things with the Police was brought home to me when the CPS made an application for bad character in June 2011 – As mentioned already DD - This brought to the light evidence not only hidden and that should have been disclosed by my specific request and payment to the Police on 27th April 2007, but this ‘evidence’ is in fact false: namely the allusion that I was involved in attempting to abduct children in 2002: sick! And totally unfounded!
I thereby enclose proof attached to that document of my request that all that was on the Police National Computer would be revealed KK. With that I enclose the original copy of the response LL which suggests there was nothing on the PNC! I thereby also further attach to these the true story of the 2002 events encapsulated in my letter to Mr Mike Tipple dated 28th May 2007 MM as well as further proof that my character in regards to children is completely different: see my mention of the Wise family children NN. Further, the Police took my computers and disks when they looked into this and nothing whatsoever was found in these that suggest such a horrible allusion. None of that is mentioned in the bad character report. All the toys mentioned were never sought out by me, but bought at serious discount by the regular visit at my previous place of work - Serco at Beddington Lane - by a book type club from whom I had already bought many other bargains like C.S Lewis’ Narnia tales paperback set (7 for £5.00), several cookery books and then later the toys mentioned for my visiting friends. I am flabbergast this false allusion of me is in Police records.
Officer Tovey (Miss Tovey in CID)
Another persistent argument by the CPS has been that I wrote to Kelly directly after I had received the Police’s initial warning letter. This is false. When I received my first contact from the Police in regards to Kelly the letter was dated 20th July 2007. However the postmark on the envelope is 25th July 2007 and on the day of my receiving this – the 26th July 2007 I spoke with Officer Tovey on the phone at 9:12 AM. I mentioned my letters to Kelly which I had written and sent in the preceding days prior to any knowledge of the Police’s involvement. It is of note that in my face to face conversation with Alan Culverhouse a couple of days earlier he made no mention of the Police involvement whatsoever. Tovey’s failure to record my call and the information not relayed meant the CPS only saw what purported to a defiance of a Police letter in deciding on making a charge merely by looking at the date of the warning letter and the dates of my letters to Kelly.
I thereby enclose a photocopy of the envelope and the letter envelope and the letter OO.
PC Stephen Tyler P202185
When my car was set on fire in August 2010 the Police Station denied any knowledge of the event whilst the local Fire Chief told me he had informed the Station at 3AM that morning. Eventually after my repeated calls PC Tyler was sent to my home. By which time the Insurance Company had taken care of removing the car from the road. I mentioned my suspicion to PC Tyler that Kelly’s Dad was behind this arson. I repeated that mention to him when he came to arrest me in the early hours of the morning of 27th May 2011. It appears he has never recorded this or passed that information on.
Other Officers
Apart from an acknowledgment of my correspondence to the Commissioner I never got a reply. Not forgetting those involved in not producing what was apparently on computer when requested and paid for: there was a box ticked answering the question that everything that was on computer was being requested for.
Do I think I would never have been charged had all these Officers done their job with impartiality and to the full?
Yes.
To assist with Chronology I add the following notes:
Unknown Officers back in 2002 - Summer 2002
Unknown Officers relating to the PNC - April – June 2007
Officer Tovey (Miss Tovey in CID) - July 2007
DC Nigel Abbott - August 2007 – October 2007
PC Patrick Morgan P217247 - December 2007 – April 2008
PC Stephen Tyler P202185 - August 2010 – August 2011
DS Kenny Windsor - Post June 2011
[I contacted Rachel Robertson lawyer at the IPCC 12 January 2012 14:14 to inform her that this is a typo and should read "Post June 2010" as per the contents of the earlier paragraph headed "DS Kenny Windsor"]
Other Officers - January 2011 – April 2011
PC Steve Bowler P221258 and an unnamed Senior Officer
May 2011 – August 2011
Since the enclosed is only a portion of the documents referred to, in the event others are needed from me rather than sourced from the files in Police care, please do not hesitate to request them.
Yours faithfully,
Jacques R. More FTC
P.S. As a sole trader I share my business letterhead
Scan of Main Complaint Letter to IPCC
ADDENDUM LETTER
Rebecca Tonge
Casework Manager
IPCC
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
Case Ref. 2011/018867
31st October 2011
Dear Casework Manager Tonge,
I trust this letter finds you well.
Please would you treat this letter as an addendum to my letter of the 21st October. I thus acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 25th October and thank you for it.
Following a concentrated effort to produce and put together my first letter I thought I had committed all that was needful to paper. Unfortunately not so, as a memory suddenly emerged that I missed out on mentioning one Officer who was involved in my arrest and interview in 2009. The paperwork for that period was not together with the rest.
This section of information thereby fits in chronologically after the first court hearing of April 2008 and the latest one of 2011. But, in terms of the layout of my first cover letter I would have placed it following my comments relating to PC Patrick Morgan P217247 and those of DS Kenny Windsor.
PC N Matthews 809ZD P211621
Following the courageous and truthful confession in court of PC Morgan I would have thought that a learning had occurred of that mistake, but when I was arrested and charged on 14th October 2009 by PC Matthews, he repeated the lack of impartiality behaviour of PC Bowler and refused to look into the fact that I had reasonable excuse by virtue of contact with a friend of Kelly, Miss Hannah Maria Nesbeth, who had communicated between me and Kelly. Kelly – again out of fear of her Dad – denied any of this and in court on this occasion, whilst acknowledging this friend existed denied any communications with Hannah. If PC Matthews had obtained a statement from Hannah or a record from Facebook of these exchanges – and who else but the Police have the power to do this when you are under arrest? - there would have been proof positive that Kelly was lying and the allusion she was giving to the Police of shock of hearing from me again, proved totally false: and this again prior to any charge. I clearly mentioned at interview the involvement of Miss Nesbeth and no attempts were made to check that out.
So that, in court, I questioned PC Matthews on his not looking into the context of the events and whilst acknowledging the principle, nothing in practise has shown this impartiality in evidence.
Thank you again for your attention.
Yours sincerely,
Jacques R. More FTC Scan of Addendum Letter to IPCC
Not supplied to the IPCC but in Police care is my letter of 23rd June 2010 and enclosures provided to Borough Commander Adrian Roberts. Here is the text in full and the 2 pages of notes, but not the enclosures:
I am also adding a link to the relevant text of a letter by senior Unichem manager David Griffiths - full copy with the Commander (one of the enclosures) - David wrote to me telling me Alan Featherstone my in line manager had never spoken with me about my previous arrest in 2002 for suspicion of attempted child abduction in our meeting of 6 March 2007. In court on 1st April 2008 Alan Featherstone openly confessed to talking about this at that meeting of the 6th March. Since these 2 statements both come from Alan Featherstone and are about the same event at the same time and fully contradict each other it is proof positive of his lies to his senior managers and thereby reveals the plot between himself, Jeanette Howell his 2nd in command (and Mike Tipple - the Branch Manager)...
The Borough Commander
Ch. Supt. Adrian Roberts
Croydon Police Station
71 Park Lane
Croydon CR9 1BP
23rd June 2010
Dear Chief Roberts,
I trust this letter finds you well.
I enclose document copies relating to crimes of perjury and attempt to pervert the course of justice. I request these be investigated and acted upon.
It has taken all this time from the court dates of 1st and 2nd April 2008 until now to understand and appreciate that this is the necessary course of action required in order to set in motion a process that would eventually clear my name, but importantly - as I understand your responsibility - the only way to identify these criminals and help prevent further harm from them.
Setting the scene
I am convicted of harassment of Miss Kelly Culverhouse and have spent a total of 5 months at HMP High Down: 2 months in 2008 and 3 months up until mid January 2010. However, the total lack of investigation by Police Officers into my side of the story has meant that prior to any charge none of my claims were investigated. You may wonder then, why it is I have not complained about this omission and total dereliction of duty and lack of impartiality. It is because of the then PC Patrick Morgan’s commendable honesty – the only person who with myself spoke the whole truth in court – in confessing to this lack of Police investigation.
Since I am convicted twice – the 2nd is for a breach of injunction without reasonable excuse - you would have thought that PC Matthews would have learned in 2009 from PC Morgan’s example of 2008. Not so, since I clearly mentioned in my interview and again before being charged, that Miss Culverhouse’s friend, Miss Hannah Nesbeth was involved in communicating between me and her. Miss Culverhouse totally denied this in court and had this been investigated, would have shown that she also thereby committed perjury. However, it is my understanding and belief that all Miss Culverhouse’s lies have been out of fear for her own safety and welfare with due regard to her father and not out of malice or cover up, as per the documents and individuals which need investigating. So much so that she led the Police to believe that she was oblivious to any contact from me whatsoever and her part in them and that her immediate reaction to my 1st direct contact was to contact yourselves. In court – oblivious to the reason for the question – when asked by the CPS: what was the 1st thing she did after my (alleged) out of the blue contact? She replied “I telephoned my Dad” (if malice and cover up were in her mind, she would not have said this). So that I did have reasonable excuse, but this is contextual information from me and unrelated directly with the attached documents.
It was also in the hope that perhaps Kelly might be able to increase in courage and fortitude to own up that this evidence was also delayed. But instead the extent of her incapacity to do this has become more apparent to me. Whatever ongoing investigations ensue I plead with you to take her motives regarding her welfare and safety into consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Jacques R. More FTC
Author and Manager of Jarom Books
Notes for investigation into perjury and
attempts at perverting the course of justice
Court dates: 1st and 2nd April 2008.
In the case of the Crown versus Mr Jacques More (then of 18 Rigby Close, Croydon, CR0 4JU)
Main parties involved:
Mr Alan Featherstone – Inventory Manager at the time at Unichem Ltd, 60 Vulcan Way, New Addington – and my in line manager
Mrs Jeanette Howell – his 2nd in command.
The Clerk of the court and/or the Chair of the Bench of Magistrates (see below)
But 1st a quick version of the full story
In a nutshell I was interested in Miss Culverhouse and asked her out after she showed interest. I have never sought anyone this young before, but saw the natural interest evident. She at best said “Yes, maybe” and at the worst “I’m going out with friends”. She never said, “No.” Unsure of her mixed responses and because I had received the last one in the Controlled Drug room without having signed in and out I determined to mention to my in line manager my release of interest in Kelly whilst confessing to entering the CD room with no other purpose of entry. I don’t know why he asked, but Mr Featherstone then asked me if I had ever been in trouble with the Police to which I felt obliged to share about a mistaken arrest in 2002 (about which I attach my letter to Mike Tipple to explain). However, the time together was cut short and the potted version then given was unbeknown to me taken as if I was guilty of such activity or interest. His 2nd in command Mrs Howell then that very day went to solicit a complaint about me from Miss Culverhouse in order to ‘protect’ her. Then Mrs Howell proceeded to feed the idea of my being wrongly interested in children and having been arrested for such through the gossip mill and orchestrate with Mr Featherstone and Mr Tipple’s knowledge further complaints against me. As a result of which as I was struggling to understand the evil atmosphere
that had then arisen at work, I sought to write to Mr and Mrs Culverhouse (Kelly’s parents) to show I was not a monster (at the time wholly unknowing my earlier arrest story in a perverted form was in play) and that some plot was apparent which both Kelly and I were victims of. I wrote that letter when it became evident that Mr Tipple the Branch Manager was also involved and had failed to return my request for him to contact me. I had been on the verge of reporting the matter to the Company Secretary, but was suspended from work before I could. As part of the plot Mr Featherstone without any new ‘act’ on my part evident, sought advice on suspension the day before my letter to the parents was handed to a mutual friend of the parents who had promised me to pass it to them. This ‘advice’ and timing was testified to by Mrs Carol Butler the HR Manager in court.
Being suspended an investigation occurred which failed to uncover the plot but discovered the bad story in play. I then shared the story in full and said a text out of context is a pretext, so please share the context with the staff and the problem is then dealt with. Mrs Howell had orchestrated a petition that I not return to work on the basis of the false story. But, instead the company offered me the sum of £6,794.76 in writing to walk away without blame to them or myself. I turned it down in that this then would not address the issue of the plotters who would then be able to act this way to anyone else. I was then dismissed on the ground of “some other substantial reason” namely that they could not guarantee my safety if I returned to work (not wanting to share the context which would obliterate the pretext which caused the unhappy atmosphere). I appealed in that the plot was not investigated. This was also unsuccessful in their total lack of proper procedure to investigate lying managers.
It was then I sought Miss Culverhouse’s help in obtaining information to assist my getting my job back and demonstrate the plot: this was a Thursday. She agreed to help. I had no knowledge who would have been there when I turned up at the Culverhouse’s front door and hoped to meet Kelly’s parents but it was only her and her brother and their dog present. When I retuned to see how Kelly got on 4 days later on the Monday I met her father Mr Alan Culverhouse and he requested I did not come there again which I have honoured. He made no mention that the Police had been contacted, but did tell me that he understood why I would want to hear Kelly say “no” if that was what she wanted (in my meeting with her 4 days before I showed no interest in her whatsoever to which she testified in court). Alan agreed to then pass on to Kelly a letter I had written which I sealed in his presence. It turned out that Kelly was on holiday and Alan opened the envelope and without Kelly’s knowledge took a copy to the Police (Kelly testified to not knowing about the letter until she returned from her holiday). In view of my complete lack of signs of this interest when we spoke 4 days earlier, the letter was to relate privately my ongoing interest if she should return it. Two days later on the Wednesday I received a letter from the Police postmarked the day before but written on the Friday. And so on.
The Perjury and attempts at perverting the course of justice
Mr Featherstone and Mrs Howell
In court Mr Featherstone testified that he and I discussed the earlier arrest story, but the attached letter from Mr David Griffiths the appeals Manager shows Featherstone completely denied this to his senior managers. Section 3 of the letter (highlighted). [N.B. the notes on the letter refer to 15 pages of evidence that was handed to the Police and the CPS separately in 2007/8]
Mrs Jeanette Howell said I mentioned my earlier arrest at a mealtime in the canteen room where she was present a full year before. This is a complete fabrication.
The letter by Mr David Griffiths mentions that the story was known to the staff because of my mentioning it to another supervisor Mr James Herron during a coffee break conversation (also section 3). Another fabrication and it is likely, that on hearing Mr Herron had been requested as a witness for the Court event, Mrs Howell decided with Mr Featherstone to make up this divulgence at a meal time.
Of course, if there had been a mealtime or a mention of the story to James, Mr Featherstone would already know of this Police involvement and would not have needed to ask!
The mention that Mr Herron was the introducer of the story to the staff is in direct contrast to the testimony of Mrs Howell and her testimony is perjury.
You only have my written testimony here and Mr Griffiths’ letter to demonstrate the perjury and attempt to pervert the course of justice by Featherstone and Howell. Since the Magistrates Court is not a court of record, the only other parties that took note were the Barristers on both sides and the Clerk of the Court. This also holds true for the next document I bring in evidence.
The Clerk of the court and/or the Chair of the Bench
Which brings me to the other material evidence I wish to see investigated: The ‘cover up’ written version account of the Bench of Magistrates’ judgment of the 2nd April 2008. This account is wholly different from the verbal and thereby as a cover up is an attempt to subvert the course of justice.
In the verbal judgment the Chair of the Bench clearly said I was dismissed from Unichem for harassing Kelly. This is in complete opposition to the evidence put before them by Mrs Carol Butler the HR Manager. In the written version this verbal judgment is denied (highlighted).
The written version has a complete omission of the prime and full introductory mention of the Magistrates express disapproval of a man my age being interested in someone as much younger than I - in process condemning all such marriages in this country e.g. Mr John Cleese or Mr Tony Robinson – which judgment and consideration is in contradiction of the law and statutes of this realm and something which the Clerk of the Court should have intervened about since this concern was expressed during my cross examination by the Chair whilst I was on the stand (I was dumbstruck and did not know then how to respond). So that this written version of the judgment of the bench is a fabrication bearing little resemblance to the verbal version and I do not know whether it was the Chair of the Bench who wrote it or the Clerk of the Court.
There are other omissions.
|
