Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site
LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK - She's not alone in profiting from sending innocent men to prison for crimes they did not commit. Amazingly, in 47 cases she was found out, even after Lord David Blunkett got laws passed that took away the rights of the accused to enter a court "innocent until proven guilty." Yes, in enacting the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the rights of anyone accused of a sex crime are stripped away and the Judges do not have to warn the jury about the danger of convicting anyone on just the unsupported say so of a claimant. In other words, the British judicial system is a mockery of justice. Article 6 of the Convention of Human Rights says that a person has the right to enter a court as innocent.
To make matters worse, Judges are rewarded with knighthoods for refusing appellants convicted of a sex crime the right to appeal. This means that if Prince Edward were to enter a British court accused of having sex with Virginia Roberts, where she alleges she “engaged in sexual activities” with Andrew that night after a Chinese dinner and drinks at “Club Tramp” and says she was later paid $15,000 by Epstein for “working” with the prince. Later she says she told Epstein about “Andy’s sexual interests in feet,” which she claims Epstein found “very funny.” Her affidavit also alleges she had sex two more times that year with Prince Andrew, at Epstein’s New York mansion in a massage room she refers to as the “dungeon.” Based on this testimony and in the absence of evidence to the contrary (not the Prince's word), he would be convicted. His title would probably get him an appeal from judges towing the party line hoping for honours, but without any hard evidence, his appeal would be bound to fail.
Sussex Police is one the forces accused of massaging a crime scene and cherry picking the evidence in order to gain a conviction. They may have even told the claimant's mother to hide evidence in her loft and write notes that might help them gain a conviction, where they waiting two weeks before interviewing the claimant, after an acrimonious separation, where the male (who served almost 4 years for a crime he is adamant he did not commit) left the family, having suffered being hit and having his laptop smashed, and being drained of money that the claimant family denied receiving.
The mother and daughter both told him not to leave, or they'd "get him." The defending barrister failed to mention any of this to the Jury, did not mention about bank statements that proved the mother was a liar, and did not question the girl as to her collection of "The Bill" VHS tape collection, having claimed that she would not have know that sexual activity with the defendant was wrong. Clearly, many of The Bill episodes and her other favourite, "Casualty," focused on child sex and how wrong it was.
In this case the police force were tied to Wealden District Council, having failed to investigate 12 complaints from a petition in 1997, then agreeing to work with Wealden in connection with other fabricated information as to firearms at the defendant's home in 1998. There were of course no firearms and claims as to mental instability were also unfounded. The object of such claims was to elicit a raid by armed officers. Possibly, in the hope that the police shot their victim, where he was a perpetual thorn in their side.
James (Jimmy) Ashley was not so lucky, he was shot dead in 1998 after Chris Sherwood burst into his flat in the early hours of the morning to confront the naked man is his bed. That raid was also based on fabricated evidence (probably also supplied by the council). Sussex police then embarked on a cover up, but investigations by Hampshire and Kent police forces uncovered the awful truth that is so bad the Report could not be published. Chris Sherwood was not prosecuted for murder, or even manslaughter. Inconvenient cases like this have a habit of coming to nothing.
LIAM ALLAN - Contends that the police cherry picked evidence to support the case for the prosecution, leaving out inconvenient information (in failing to disclose) that disproved the allegations.
27 DECEMBER 2019
Her handling of Operation Yewtree into sex abuse allegations was also blasted after several celebrities were cleared.
Sam Armstrong, who was acquitted of rape when she was DPP, said: “They can make her a Dame but they can never undo the shame that Saunders brought to the office of Director of Public Prosecutions.”
NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - Evidence of criminal malfeasance in common law is mounting against each chief constable in turn as they refuse to investigate crimes against the person. Historic allegations often take a while before the state acts. It matter not if a crime is 20 or even 30 years in the making, it is in the public interest to make an example of the offenders to ward off other similar crimes taking place in other forces and planning departments across Great Britain. We are sure that Her Majesty and successor Kings would want to clean up British local government. If in the cases cited, the massaging of the evidence was deliberate and as part of an agenda, when it appears that misfeasance in public office become malfeasance. Perhaps Ms Saunders would care to clarify that one for us? The caselaw cited is R v Bowden 1995 Court of Appeal (98 1 WLR), where an officer failed in his duty to protect a member of the public.
DEMONSTRABLE BIAS, DISCRIMINATION & HATE CRIME
You may have heard of bias, and you may wonder what that means. Bias is when the police are so intent on finding a person guilty of a crime that they are only looking for evidence that help them gain a conviction. Any evidence that points the other way is ignored and in some cases buried, but is never disclosed. Where bias is evident one can never be sure that the investigating officers did their job. Indeed, we know they did not where they failed to secure key evidence that would have helped the defendant prove his innocence. You should know that nobody can be the judge in their own cause. Where there is a potential conflict of interest, an investigation should be passed to another force as per R v Sussex Justices 1924. Sussex police did not want that. They knew an outside force would instruct an unbiased doctor to conduct a vaginal inspection, who would realise straight away that the girl was intact. Not only that, but an unbiased physician would have said that the hymenal marks were naturally occurring. Only full width lacerations indicate penetration.
NOT ACCUSED, JUST MENTIONED - According to many newspaper articles: "The prince has had a close relationship with Epstein who has faced multiple allegations of sex with minors and in 2008 pleaded guilty to soliciting sex with a minor, serving 13 months in prison. Epstein and Prince Andrew were photographed walking together after Epstein was released." He can thank his lucky stars that no such allegations have been made in the UK. Here, the likes of Alison Saunders (and the DPP who have been crafting cases for years), have what many might view as dubious agendas. It is called "Noble Cause Corruption." Being the Duke of York, is the only reason why he might receive fair treatment. But if indicted, the jury would most likely have to find him guilty, unless the Prince came up with credible alibis to counter the allegations.
THE TELEGRAPH 29
The former Director of Public Prosecutions, who left her post earlier this year, has not been awarded a damehood in the New Years Honours List.
It marks a major departure from her predecessors, each of whom became a knight or a dame either during their tenure, or immediately after their departure.
Last night it was not clear whether Mrs Saunders had been snubbed by the honours committee, or if she had refused to accept her damehood. A source close to the 57-year-old refused to comment.
It comes after Ms Saunders faced heavy criticism for presiding over several rape cases that collapsed as a result of the prosecution failing to disclose evidence.
Earlier this year, two men whose lives were ruined by false rape allegations insisted that Ms Saunders should not be honoured after presiding over a “convictions at any cost culture”.
In a letter, Liam Allan, 23, and Samuel Armstrong, 25, said: “We were wronged by a justice system that was supposed to protect us,” adding that Ms Saunders “must not be rewarded for failure”.
She was also heavily criticised for her decision not to charge the Labour peer Lord Janner with alleged child sex crimes, which was was overturned after the complainants demanded a review.
When her departure was announced in March, a Whitehall source told the Telrgraph:"It was felt a clean break was needed.”
Saunders, who was a career lawyer and only the second woman to become DPP, will take up a job as a partner with the law firm Linklaters in the New Year.
Other notable figures to miss out on top honours include tax-avoiding celebrities including David Beckham and Gary Lineker, after authorities decided to stop rewarding people with “poor tax behaviour”.
The pair are among a number of prominent figures left out of this year’s list after being found using controversial schemes to reduce their tax burden.
It comes after a memo leaked earlier this year revealed HMRC works with the honours committee to identify nominees who may cause “adverse public comment” if handed gongs.
TELEGRAPH 27 DECEMBER 2019
- A former chief prosecutor who presided over a series of botched rape trials is awarded a damehood today, prompting criticism of the honours system for “rewarding failure”.
Alison Saunders, who stepped down as director of public prosecutions last year, becomes a DCB in the New Year Honours list despite accusations that lives were “ruined” during her tenure.
Other recipients of honours today include the singer Olivia Newton-John, who becomes a Dame, and the Conservative politician Iain Duncan Smith, who is knighted.
Other tax avoiders who missed out this year include the singer Robbie Williams, former England captain Wayne Rooney, and the former footballer and charity campaigner Rio Ferdinand. It is not suggested that any of these individuals broke any laws.
The HMRC document reveals the taxman combs through the financial affairs of thousands of nominees before making recommendations to the honours committee.
“It should be clear to the public - both nominators and potential nominees - that poor tax behaviour is not consistent with the award of an honour,” the memo states.
It continues: "Trust would likely be lost if an honour was awarded to someone with negative tax behaviours and those behaviours became linked to the positive recognition that accompanies the award of an honour."
The list is then returned to the Cabinet Office - and the prime minister - to make the final decision. It is not known whether individual celebrities including Beckham were prevented from receiving top honours due to tax reasons.
But last year leaked emails suggested that the footballer believed he was on the verge of receiving a knighthood in 2013 until the taxman intervened.
HMRC has however not stood in the way, it appears, of awards for its own staff, nine of whom receive honours.
Chief executive Jonathan Thompson is made a KCB despite presiding over a series of failures. Earlier this year HMRC was accused of “letting down self-employed people” by failing to answer four million calls to the tax helpline.
There was also a 36pc increase in the number of taxpayers taking the “aggressive” revenue to the High Court.
“In 2017/18, we secured a record £605 billion in revenue to pay for our hospitals, schools and other vital public services and the tax gap remains at its lowest for five years.”
EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED - Instead of using their forensic expert in child sex allegations, Sussex police enlisted the help of a lesser experienced doctor who failed to carry out measurements with a colposcope because, it is alleged, that she realised the girl was lying due to the fact that her hymen was tightly closed, even "after labial traction." The doctor told the jury that naturally occurring marks were suspicious. Whereas, these marks are seen in all ages of females and they are quite common. Either she lied, or was completely incompetent. If she was incompetent the conviction falls under Article 5, because nobody can be convicted by an incompetent court. If she lied, then she perjured herself, and again the conviction falls as a malicious prosecution.
We wonder if the fact that the girls grandfather was a former Master at a Masonic Lodge just a few hundred yards from a police station in Eastbourne, where officers from this force were members - had anything to do with the fact that the so-called crime scene was not sealed and evidence that could have helped the defence was not collected. We imagine that their grandfather was furious that the engagement had been called off to his daughter, after he had spent so long grooming the defendant as his son in law. What do you think? If you were a mason with links to the police, would you have used your influence to ensure that a prosecution took place? The police declined to provide information as to numbers of masons on the force.
When Sussex police conducted another raid to view the defendant's computers, they found no evidence to support any of the claimant's contentions, but also failed to mention this to the Jury and the fact that there were emails from her mother apologizing for smashing his laptop. Hence, they knew the split up had been forced on the defendant - that he had been in an abusive relationship. Naturally, in the courtroom the psychiatric nurse claimed the strains in the relationship had been the other way around.
However you look at it, any police force that operates under the present Sexual Offences Act 2003, in denial of their Code of Practice, discriminates on an institutionalised basis. Where all police forces routinely craft cases to increase their conviction rate, it must be that being a police officer requires you to violate the basic principles of fair play that we fought two world wars to prevent. It's back to the gas chambers then. Lots of black leather, mental and physical tortures. Anyone who maintains their innocence is a target for prison officers, probation officers and then the police on a routine basis.
SUSSEX POLICE A - Z OF OFFICER INVESTIGATIONS
LINKS & REFERENCE