Great British injustice system

British Injustices

Injustice in England and Wales

 

THE MISSING WORK DIARY

 

HOME  |   CASE STUDIES   |   HISTORY   LAW   |    POLITICS       RIGHTS    SITE INDEX

 

 

The British judicial system is shown here as corrupt from the judges to the policeman on the beat

 

DANGEROUS - It takes a team to gain a wrongful conviction. It starts with the police investigators and bias. They only look for evidence to convict. Then we need the CPS to charge the victim, based on the one-sided evidence, or rather lack of evidence. The CPS must then obstruct the defendant's legal team in disclosure to drain his Legal Aid funding. The prosecutor need not be a willing accomplice, but must be made to believe that she is prosecuting a sex offender. The Judge must also be made to think the same, when he is likely to control the trial to ensure that the defendant is disadvantaged. He will refuse all applications and push through the case as quickly as possible, especially for a brother mason. But before any of this can take place, they need an emotionally disturbed child who is out for revenge. Social services, and her teachers must be willing to bend the rules to coach her to create a story from nothing, that is likely to convince a jury - in the absence of any evidence to the contrary - and for that you need a defence solicitor and barrister who are not prepared to fight to defend their client, and willing to lie to him about securing expert evidence as to penetration, saying that Legal Aid will not fund it.

 

 

In the case of Nelson Kruschandl, Gordon Staker, Jo Pinyoun and James Hookway were sent to gather evidence to convict Mr Kruschandl as to a trumped up allegation of sexual assault, when it appears that they ignored and may have even advised the psychiatric nurse mother to hide evidence and not mention it, being a work diary that proved a lack of opportunity as had been claimed.

 

The facts speak for themselves. Gordon Staker and his team failed to secure video tapes belonging to the claimant that proved she was an avid follower of The Bill and Casualty, where she'd claimed in interview that she did not know that sexual assault and rape was wrong, and where those television programmes routinely carried episodes about child sex, prosecutions and the like where anyone watching those programmes would have known that what she was saying was a lie.

 

Hence, the girl is caught our on her taped interview provably lying about that, and only made up her story about being abused after all other attempts by her to force the defendant to remain with her mother had failed, hence the swing to revenge. The girl and her mother had warned the defendant not to leave their family. The poor chap had no idea what these females had is store for him. Sussex police and social services knew that the girl and her mother were both emotional putty in their hands. Wealden and the former councillor who was angry at the calling off of the engagement to his daughter, were of course delighted that their long-term adversary was being set up for a conviction.

 

It is not that you know someone is lying, it is being able to prove it.

 

Gordon Staker and his team also failed to secure the girls computers and failed to secure the mother's work diary. We conclude from the failure to secure these items that the investigation was either grossly negligent or a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice. Either way, Sussex police is guilty of a malicious prosecution where they have done nothing to seek to put the matter right.

 

 

Concealment of vital evidence equals fraud

 

NOTE: The identities of the persons concerned have been changed, save only for the defendant, who is asking for help from any investigative reporters with an interest in miscarriages of justice. The days that were important were Thursdays. The venue that was important was Herstmonceux and being alone at the venue. So we need to identify Thursdays when NK was alone with GG. You can see from the above Summing Up extract, that NK's testimony on this issue was extremely important. Firstly, the diary was sprung on the defence, with no chance for forensic examination or research into who was where for what - an Article 6 violation. Article 6 requires that the lawyer of the accused have time to prepare a defence. It was a Friday. Lawyers don't work over the weekend and the case continued the following Monday.

 

You can see from the table below that far from Judge Joseph's assertion that:  "I do not think he really added very much." That NK was actually confirming dates that had no bearing on the claims of GG, but rather disproved her claims. GG was caught out by the diaries that her mother hid in her loft to prevent the Police seeing them.

 

Where Judge Joseph failed to go through these dates by cross referencing then with a calendar, to be able to point out to the Jury that there were discrepancies between the dates and the claimant's evidence, the Jury were, in effect, being told by Joseph that the dates were all proofs of opportunity. He also failed to point out to the Jury that the girl's mother had hidden these diaries in her loft to prevent Sussex Police from finding them.  The act of concealment very much aligns with the financial conduct of the claimant's mother, in that her testimony is unreliable. Could it be that such crafting of her story did not take place in the two weeks before the Police finally decided to start recording facts. It seems to us that in order for the girl to begin crafting a plausible turn of events, first of all her mother had to hide her work diaries in her loft.

 

The only reason this woman did not destroy her work diaries was that she needed them to prove patient care - otherwise, we feel sure she would have disposed of them.

 

 

Without cross referencing the above with a calendar, it looks pretty damning. But, when cross referenced, most of the dates do not coincide with the Thursdays when abuse was alleged - so eliminating them. Then, on other of those dates the defendant now has testimony (that was offered at the time from a list of 17 character witnesses, but his barrister failed to take statements) from third parties who were present when the claimant claims to have been alone with the defendant - so proving that the claimant had made up an unsupportable story. As Judge Joseph said, the defendant only had to disprove one occasion to prove the girl a liar.

 

 

TABLE OF DIARY ENTRIES TO BE CHECKED BY CCRC 2014 APPLICATION


DATE

UNINFORMED COMMENT

DIARY

ENTRY

REFERENCED

SCORE

TRANSCRIPT

.

.

.

.

.

.

14-08-03

GG

1

Bike chain

0

thanks note

06-09-03

GG

2

Shopping

0

Saturday

18-09-03

GG recording

3

1st nothing

0

admits

25-09-03

Trampolining

4

Trampoline

0

.

02-10-03

GG recording

5

Cousins CD

0

not alone

11-10-03

Electric bike SS/GG/JJ

6

Family

0

Saturday

16-10-03

Electric bike GS

7

2nd nothing

0

admits

13-11-03

Horse pics Sanctuary

8

B.W.

0

.

27-11-03

GG NK

9

with CC

0

admits

04-12-03

GG NK

10

with CC

0

admits

24-01-04

NK CC

11

CC

0

no GG

05-02-04

NK pick up GG

12

Note missed

0

evidence

26-02-04

Maybe tennis

13

poss fam ten

1

SS & GG admit

20-05-04

Family Tennis

14

Family

0

admits

22-05-04

NK music alone GG horses

15

NK Music

0

Saturday


Total Possible Opportunities 1

This table needs to be read in context with the evidence that was given at the trial and in statements. Taking into account the times GG admits to events where nothing happened, and eliminating all days that are not Thursday out of a total of the 15 diary entries that were introduced late in evidence, then realistically, there is just one possible opportunity where NK/GG could have been alone for singing or tennis.

 

However, that totally destroys GGs claims irrevocably where she claims three times in the first month - which you can see from the diary is September of 2003, when such claim is impossible. Indeed, even if you take October or November of 2003, there is no such opportunity and that explains SSs need to hide her diary in her loft away from the police. SS had also said there were just two times when NK was alone with GG, and she wrote the diary? She knew that if the police read that diary with time to cross reference, that they would know her daughter was lying.

 

 

OTHER DIARY EVIDENCE IGNORED BY THE POLICE

 

Diaries belonging to the accused were read by the investigating officers, who, it appears, having seen the entries for Valentines Day, decided this would damage their case and ignored it. It appears that similar instruction was sent to barrister Julian Dale and Timothy Stirmey, even where their client had provided that evidence to them.

 

 

PAUL WHITEHOUSE & JOE EDWARDS

 

As to the integrity of Sussex police and their chief constables, we should look at the investigation of the shooting of James Ashley under the lead of Sir John Hoddinott.

 

The Wilding report found a complete failure of corporate duty by Sussex police. The Hampshire inquiry concluded that three police officers lied about intelligence in order to persuade Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan to authorise the raid. The report found that the raid was

"authorised on intelligence that was not merely exaggerated, it was determinably false ... there was a plan to deceive and the evidence concocted."

 

The report also showed that the guidelines on firearms put together by the Association of Chief Police Officers was breached. Experts on firearms and the law told Kent police that even if the intelligence had been correct, the firearms should not have been authorised.

The chief constable was castigated. Sir John Hoddinott concluded that Paul Whitehouse, the then chief constable,

"wilfully failed to tell the truth as he knew it, he did so without reasonable excuse or justification and what he published and said was misleading."

Sir John found evidence against Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan. That included criminal misfeasance and neglect of duty, discreditable conduct and aiding and abetting the chief constable's false statements. There was suggested evidence of collusion between some or all of the chief officers and an arguable case of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

These statements were contained in those investigation reports. The reports have been kept secret - apart from the leaks made to the press - and have never been available for public scrutiny.

 

 

CONTACT SUSSEX POLICE


In an emergency, when life is in immediate danger or a crime is in progress, call 999

 

 

Katy Bourne sitting on her hands while sitting on the fence

 

KATY BOURNE - Was elected Crime Commissioner, taking office with an oath to serve the public interest. That is an oath that many are now questioning, where she appears to be serving Sussex Police instead of policing the organisation that has come under such flack for their blatant refusal to investigate so many complaints of malfeasance in public office. What is plain is that where there is criticism of her alleged inaction, that she works with other forces to quash what many might agree is freedom of speech. In the case of Matt Taylor obtaining an injunction and in the case of John Hoath (gun crime allegation) threatening an injunction.

 

 

Giles York chief constable of Sussex

 

Giles York is the chief constable of Sussex Police taking over from a long chain of chief constables, including Paul Whitehouse, who was finally forced to resign after the Home Secretary insisted that he should go for bringing the force into disrepute from his attempt to cover up the Jimmy Ashley murder. Each time one chief resigns, the next candidate learns from the mistakes of his predecessor and makes effort not to be tripped up in the same way. Unfortunately, that is not helping the situation, where in-effect Mr York has nobody looking over his shoulder to make sure that he is not breaking the law. The most common way of breaking the law, is simply doing nothing when a crime is reported - so becoming party to the crime, as with the Petition scandal in 1997.

 

 

A - Z OF SUSSEX POLICE OFFICER INVESTIGATIONS

 

Aran Boyt

Chris Sherwood

Colin Dowle

Jo Pinyoun

Joe Edwards

Giles York

Gordon Staker

James Hookway

Kara Tombling

Ken Jones

Martin Richards

Neil Honnor

Olivia Pinkney

Paul Whitehouse

Robert Lovell

Sarah Jane Gallagher

Sir Ken Macdonald QC

Timothy Mottram

 

 

 

 

 

This site is protected under Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

FAIR USE NOTICE

 

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. 

 

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

 

   

 

 

Paul Whitehouse (1993-2001) Ken Jones (2001-2006) Joe Edwards (2006-2007) Martin Richards (2008-2014) Giles York (2014 >>)

 

 

This site is free of Copyright except where specifically stated 2018.  Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts.  However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided.  All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide.  Horse Sanctuary Trust.   All trademarks herby acknowledged.

 

 

 

BRITISH LAW ENFORCEMENT IS LITTERED WITH CORRUPTION AND MASONIC INFLUENCES