Met police dirty secret

Blog

•

FALSE-EVIDENCE-BY-POLICE.COM

The low down dirty secrets of the Metropolitan Police Exposed

Plus

How the court allowed themselves to be used as instruments of fraud by the Metropolitan police.

My objective is to give you an insight into the depths; individuals within the Metropolitan Police will go, in order not to be exposed as liars and crooks.

I will expose :

* An ex-military police officer, who now holds a senior position in a top Jewellery company, who willingly and/or otherwise supplied a false witness statement to sure up the polices defence, in a civil court case, when she knew or ought to have known that the statements that she was making was false.

* The steps the police and/or their solicitor have or will use against any litigant who bring court cases against them.

* The behind the scene activities of the metropolitan police officers, when a complaint is lodged with the IPCC, which is then investigated by the local police force, in effect they’re investigating themselves.

* This will give you an insight into how the Metropolitan police, start to build their fabrication of lies from the point of receiving an IPCC complaint.

I have never been arrested in my entire life and I have no criminal record.

This is my case and this is a real event.

On the 5th December 2013, I found my image with 19 other individuals on a Met Police most wanted poster outside a closed Metropolitan Police station in Harrow road west London.

I took several pictures of the poster, but, I wanted this poster taken down as quickly as possible because I knew I had not done anything wrong to warrant my image being on the Met Police most wanted. : See most wanted poster

Straight away I called crime stopper, they said, it’s nothing to do with them.

Then I called 999, gave them my details and the image number 113699, the call taker said someone will contact me within 24 hours, but no one did.

The same day, I went to the Paddington green police station to make a complaint, but all they said was call 101 because they do not take complaints.

The following day about 3pm, I was walking past the same police station, all the information boards had been cut down and the naked edges taped up. : See cut down frame

On the 7th April 2014 I made a formal complaint with the IPCC via their website.

All the information I’m going to expose from this point is evidence supplied to me by the Metropolitan Police within the course of a civil claim against them. The claim was issued at the Royal Courts of Justice at the Central London County Court, with me as a Litigant in person.

The case went all the way to three interim hearings. Two applications from myself for strike out of the defendant’s defence. One for standard abuse of process, first hearing, stayed for amendments, after the amendments the direction questionnaire stage, repeats itself

Then I applied for a second strike out and summary Judgement on the grounds that the defendant provided to the court false and falsified documents and exhibits in the first hearing.

The second application took the defence by surprise within three days of my application they provided a false witness statement from Helen Mackay an ex-military police officer who now holds a senior position in Tiffany & Co as the European director of security.

The cause of action I chose was:

Breach of the human rights act article 8
Two misfeasance in public office
Misuse of private information under the data protection act 1998.

In order to take the matter to court it took me 7 months of studying the Inns of Court School of Law manuals, in (civil litigation, drafting, evidence, case preparation, advocacy and last but not least pleading without tears by William M Rose.)

Then reading case laws pertaining to my type of case, at individual stages in the proceedings I would refer back to the manual when necessary to reassure myself that, I was doing everything correctly. My motto is to check double check and check again.

At this stage I considered myself well prepared to go forward with my case. But I also used every opportunity to learn from the opposition’s legal team. I was aware of all the court tools and decided which ones to use in the most cost-effective way to keep my cost down.

On the 23rd May 2014, I received a reply from the police professional standards in regards to my complaint.

The Following Information is based on evidence received from the Metropolitan Police, within the proceedings of the court case.

Step 1 In the Metropolitan Police dirty tactics: Connect the image to an alleged unsolved crime and include it as a extra suspect on a CRIS Crime Report

On the 27th May 2014, about 10.45am, the metropolitan police station in Paddington Green west London received my complaint from the IPCC. : See complaint from the IPCC

The first actions of the police immediately after the receipt of my complaint.

Passed this information to the line manager.
Between 12.07 and 12.09 p.m. M.H.Wood reopened the Tiffany & Co crime file, which had not been opened since 27th June 2013.
He then makes additional entries and closes the file, what these additional entries are has never been disclosed at any stage

Step 2 In the Metropolitan Police dirty tactics: Make a phone call to the complainant

On the 10th June 2014, I received a call from a detective sergeant Brendan Gibbs, who left a message on my voicemail for me to call him back. When I called him back he contended that the image was connected with an incident at Tiffany & Co. He explained that, staff mistakenly thought that, I was involved in a crime because I was following two people, who went on to commit a crime, but he can see that I was totally innocent of any crime.

When I asked for the time and date of the incident he contended that he would need to call me back. To my surprise he called me back the following day on 11th June 2014 with the requested information. : Listen to the voicemail-1 : voicemail -2

Commentary: Common sense dictates that, if the image complaint of was really connected to a real crime. The police would not be calling me on the phone. The first thing I would expect them to do, is knock on my door and interview me about the crime committed at Tiffany & Co, at 25 Old Bond Street On the 24th December 2012

On the 22nd July 2014 about 20.59pm, I made a second complaint with the IPCC, alleging that, the said detective was not treating my complaint seriously. I also alleged that the detective was fabricating evidence.

Commentary: The fact that, the image was my image, and I had not been to Tiffany & Co and/or the Westend of London for over 20 years would suggest to a reasonable person and one with common sense, that the information from the detective can only be a fabricated story.

Step 3 In the Metropolitan Police dirty tactics: Don’t reply to any further complaint

The metropolitan police failed to reply or at all to address the second complaint; they in effect dismissed it without a reply.

Outcome letter of my complaint from the IPPC

On the 10th October 2014, I received an outcome letter by email from the investigating officer Detective Sergeant Brendan Gibbs.

In this letter he goes on to repeat the alleged fabricated evidence that, “ officers attended 25 Old Bond Street London W.1.S 4GH on the 24th December 2012. The officers received an allegation of theft of Jewellery from staff. The staff showed officers CCTV images of three people they believed were involved in the theft. The three people entered the store at the same time and appeared to staff to know each other.”

He further contended that, “ During my investigation, I accepted that you had no part in the offence and have ensured your image has been removed from the list.” : See DS Gibbs letter : See DS Gibbs letter part 2

Commentary: To my surprise this letter and /or its contents did not make any difference to District Judge Worthington at the interim hearing on the 9th January 2017. I invited the judge to read this letter, he decline to do so. Although this letter was in my bundle of evidence. : See outcome letter

On the 9th February 2015 I sent a pre-court action letter of claim to the Directorate of legal service at New Scotland Yard.

Step 4 In the Metropolitan Police dirty tactics: Their Solicitor will make legal treats of seeking cost if the claimant does not comply and ask for more time to investigate the matter, normally 3 months.

Lets refer back to the 27th May 2014 M.H. Wood reopened the alleged Tiffany & Co CRIS Crime file and made additional entries then closed this file. A file that had not been opened since 27th June 2013.

Commentary: The beauty of the CRIS crime report logging system.

The person needs to log in to use the system and it makes a reference of the person’s name, the time, date logged in, and the time logged out.

It makes a note of what was entered but this information is changeable at any time. It acts, like an electronic filing system for monitoring crime incidence. There does not need to be an actual crime. Just an incident of a crime that may or may not need to be followed up.

In a letter dated 18th February 2015 the metropolitan police’s Solicitor Clyde & Co, contended that “ Our client is investigating the allegation within your letter of the 9th February 2015, they further contended that, they will respond to my pre action letter in full within three months.

In a letter dated 25th February 2015, I agreed to the 3months request and contended that their investigation must be completed by the 19th May 2015 otherwise court proceeding will follow without further notice.

Step 5 In the Metropolitan Police dirty tactics: Don’t reply after the request for more time to investigate and employ the wait and see tactics, to see what the claimant does. In the mean time the Met will go to step 6 of their tactics.

Step 6 in the metropolitan police dirty tactics: Start printing out evidence to support the defence.

In evidence supplied to me during the course of the court proceedings it appears that, the Metropolitan police was busy investigating my allegations against them by manufacturing evidence for their defence.

On the 18th June 2015 the metropolitan police printed out a CRIS Crime report, showing connections between image 113696, 113698 and 113699 in connection with a deception theft at Tiffany & Co on the 24th December 2012 at 2.45pm. : See print out cris report

Lets remind ourselves of the outcome letter dated 10th October 2014, from Detective Sergeant Brendan Gibbs. He contented that, “ During my investigation, I accepted that you had no part in the offence and have ensured your image has been removed from the list.”

Step 7 in the metropolitan police dirty tactics: sit on this information and wait for the next move from the claimant.

No further reply from the Metropolitan Police’s Solicitor and/or the Metropolitan Police.

Let remind ourselves. Print out a alleged CRIS crime report on the 18th June 2015, making connections between the alleged three images in a deceptive theft and do nothing but wait for the next move.

On 1st December 2015, without further warning I issued the claim at the royal Court of Justice at the Central London County Court.

Step 8 in the metropolitan police dirty tactics: Start to create False CCTV footage to support the defence. : See CCTV footage

On the 5th May 2016, I received two CD discs from the Metropolitan Police’s solicitor, which was evidence they supplied for their defence in the first interim hearing on the 17th May 2016.

One of the disc had only CCTV footage from the alleged camera 28 the other disc had CCTV footage from the same alleged camera 28 along with still images of three alleged suspects from the said Tiffany & Co store.

Disc 1, which was marked CAM 28, CCTV footage only.

When you examine the identification properties, it showed that the Disc and the information on it, was (created, modified and accessed) on the 2nd November 2015 time 16.28.58 seconds. In other words the disc was burnt directly from source material at that time and date. : See cctv properties

Disc 2 was marked (BA/1). When you examine the identification properties, of the same CCTV footage. It appears that, BA/1 had been created on the 24-12-2012 time 18.03 and 32 seconds. : See cctv properties disc 2

The only possible explanation to the identification properties of exhibits (BA/1) been different to the identification properties of disc 1 with the same CCTV footage. BA/1 was first saved on a clocked computer with the date 24-12-2012

The alleged witness statement of the security supervisor Bash Ali only confirmed one CD handed to the police on the 10th January 2013 The police made a request for CCTV footage and this CD was marked as exhibit (BA/1).

Quoting from the CRIS crime report page 22/34 in regards to CCTV been burnt to disc. “ The CCTV has been viewed by officers attending the scene but a head office had to burn it to disc and they were closed at the time of reporting. Staff have ordered the CCTV which will be delivered to the store on Thursday 27/ Friday 28th December 2012.” : See cris quote Pc H whyte

The above statements from the alleged CRIS Crime report: would suggest that the images and the CCTV footage cannot possibly have the image properties dated 24th December 2012.

I submit that, the person responsible for creating the CCTV footage and the manipulated images of 113699, forgot the story about the date these images, should have had, when he/she was burning these images to disc

Step 9 in the metropolitan police dirty tactics: Print out more evidence to support the defence.

On the 5th January 2016 the metropolitan police started to manufacture more evidence. At about 12.14pm (A WATTS (DPS)) printed out a single incident report pertaining to an alleged crime from Tiffany & Co. The caller, allegedly, B Ali the security supervisor of Tiffany & Co, the date 24th December 2012, time 16.08. This printout showed Mr. B ALI, Describing three alleged suspects in a deceptive theft.

: See cris report ali’s call

Lets remind ourselves again of the outcome letter from Detective Sergeant Brendan Gibbs, dated 10th October 2014. “ During my investigation, I accepted that you had no part in the offence and have ensured your image has been removed from the list.”

Step 10 in the metropolitan police dirty tactics: Get the solicitor to reinforce the cost element and urge the claimant to discontinue the claim.

On 6th February 2016 I received a copy of the metropolitan police’s defence, along with a letter from their legal representative. Who contended that, my claim had no prospects of success and if it is struck out or unsuccessful at trial, they will seek an order to pay their cost associated with this action. They also asserted that, “ we strongly encourage you to discontinue the claim.”

On the 22nd February 2016 I filed an application notice to strike out their defence on the grounds that the defence is an abuse of the court’s process. In which it defies factual or logical credibility

In a letter on the 26th February 2016 the metropolitan police legal representative Clyde & Co wrote, “ We note that you have failed to discontinue your claim and instead, issued an application for strike out of the defence. For the avoidance of doubt, your application is entirely misguided and we do not consider that it has any merit whatsoever. We shall now proceed to make an application for strike out and summary judgement and seek our entire costs of this action.”

On the 3rd March 2016 I sent a recorded letter to the metropolitan police directorate of legal service at New Scotland Yard. In this letter I contended that, “ This letter is to familiarize the defendant with the appearance of the claimant so you can take the opportunity to match image number 113699 with the claimant’s image. Enclosed is a recent A4 size colour photograph of the claimant wearing the same Jacket, shirt and carrying the same bag, as shown in the said most wanted poster.

Step 11 In the metropolitan police dirty tactics: Use legal tools to try and sabotage the claim. : Apply the notice to admit facts, which are in issue.

In a letter on 22nd March 2016 the metropolitan police legal representative thanked me for my letter on the 3rd March 2016 and then attempted to try a deceptive move. By asking me to sign a notice to admit facts that I was not at Tiffany & Co on The 24th December 2012 at 2.45pm.

I quote from this letter: “ our understanding of your claim is that you have not been to the Tiffany & Co the store at 25 Old Bond Street and in any event, you were not at the store or even in the vicinity of the store on 24th December 2012. So that we may fully consider the merits of your claim and in order to assist the court further, we would be grateful if you could confirm this. For the avoidance of doubt we enclose a notice to admit facts to this effect. “

The only problem with the above, is, if I signed the notice to admit the above facts. The association between my image 113699 and the connection to Tiffany & Co would be out of my grasp for the rest of the proceedings, very smart move, like checkmate in one.

My response to the notice to admit facts: In a letter On the 23rd March 2016 to the defendant’s legal representative I contended that. “ It was hoped that the defendant would use the opportunity to compare my image with the most wanted image (113699) and reassess his position on the facts in issue. But instead he has used the opportunity to abuse the process by issuing a notice to admit facts, which is at the centre of the dispute. Enclosed also: A signed copy of the notice to admit facts: You will notice, what I think of such request by the crossing out of the admission of facts and the notes inserted which is then signed and dated.”

In a letter on the 6th May 2016 the metropolitan police legal representative Clyde & Co, sent me a copy of the application notice filed with the court. They made a request to the court asking for their application to be heard at the same time as mine on the 17th May 2016.

The defendant’s Bundle of evidence. For the hearing dated 17th May 2016.

In the same envelope they included, witness statement, which supported their false defence. False and falsified documents, Falsified CRIS crime report, tampered witness statement from Tiffany & Co with extra information added, tampered viido 3 job sheet with extra information added in regards to the alleged suspect three, recreation of CCTV footage in a small room which suppose to be in a private sales area on the ground floor of Tiffany & Co, manipulated images of 113699 on the alleged exhibit BA/1 CD disc and new composition of the Met most wanted poster which is totally difference from the original poster.: See example manipulated image

In the witness statement of the defendant’s legal representative Laurie Swain. He asserted that, the defendant deny all liability, the image is not of the claimant and the image complaint of was involved in an unsolved crime at Tiffany & Co on the 24th December 2012. He submitted that, my claim should be struck out for abuse of process.

The above statement from Laurie Swain seems authoritarian to me, it suggest that to stand up for your rights in court is to abuse the process of the court.

On the 13th May 2016 I received the schedule of their cost £1916.70 plus their counsel ‘s cost. To be added.

On the 17th May 2016 we had the hearing but this was stayed for amendments. My Human rights claim was struck out because it was time barred. The two misfeasance in public office allowed to continue along with the Misuse of private information, with amendments from both sides.

Back to the allocation questioner stage

On the 18th August 2016 I received the notice of proposal for allocation to the small claims track from the court.

On the 2nd September 2016 I filed the second application notice to strike out the defendant’s defence. On the grounds that.

On the 5th and 13th May 2016, the respondent filed documents and exhibits in the court and served the same said documents and exhibits to the applicant, when he knew or ought to have known that the said documents and exhibits were false and/or falsified.

The applicant contends that the respondent’s employees and / or agent falsified the relevant documents and exhibits pertaining to the proceeding.s.

.Documents and exhibits, which falls into this category of Tainted Evidence.

* Laurie Swain ‘s witness statement 5th May 2016 and supplementary witness statement 13th May 2016 and all exhibits

* LS1, LS2, LS3

* BA/1, any and all evidences relating to suspect 3 and all references to image number 113699 in connection with a crime.

Step 12 In the metropolitan police dirty tactics: Get a false witness statement from a ex-police officer to tip the balance back to the defence and attempt to get the application notice dismissed.

Within three days of my application, on the 5th September 2016 the metropolitan police requested and/or received a witness statement from Helen Mackay, the European Director of security for Tiffany & Co. Who contended that, she is 100% certain that image 113699 is the same person in the CCTV footage as in the most wanted poster.

The witness statement from Helen Mackay is a blatant lie and she knew or ought to have known that her statement was untrue and/or a total misrepresentation of the facts.

The person acting, as suspect three in the alleged CCTV footage is different from image number 113699. The only similarity between the two images is, they both black men.

In a letter dated 1st September 2016 from Clyde & Co, they made reference to a letter that they had sent to the Court Manger at the County Court at Central London. They contended that they have received a copy of my application notice dated 2nd September 2016 and that it is identical to my application dated 22nd February 2016.

They submitted that, my application dated 2nd September 2016, be dismissed.

They requested that, all three applications should be heard together and at the same time. They further requested that, their letter should be referred to the Judge before the listing of the hearing.

Documents included with this letter, sent to me on the 1st September 2016.

Third witness statement by the defendant’s legal representative Laurie Swain.
Witness statement of Helen Mackay
Photocopies of the manipulated images of 113699
Photocopy of the recent picture of myself that I sent to them.
Copies of my particulars of claim and amended particulars of claim.
Copies of my reply to their defence
Copies of their Defence and amended defence
Exhibit MH1, which is a photograph of the entrance of Tiffany & Co with the doorman opening the doors with nobody actually entering the store at the time.
Interestingly, No CD Disc this time around.

In a letter on the 12th September 2016, to the court manager. I requested that my application notice dated 2nd September 2016, be listed separately or in the alternative that the three hearings are listed together. That the application notice dated 2nd September 2016 is heard before the two outstanding hearings.

In the same correspondent I filed an objection to the inclusion of Helen Mackay’s witness statement on the grounds that: The opinion and statements of Helen Mackay in her witness statement is prejudicial to the proceedings, by the fact that

She was not directly involved in the investigation; her only input was to approve the release of the CCTV footage to the police.

* She admits that the original source footage had been destroyed some time ago.

* She asserted facts, she would have no direct knowledge of, and in her statement she repeats the defendant’s defence.

* I alleged that, she had been primed by the defendant by first showing her the CCTV footage, which I regarded as tainted evidence then showing her the Met’s most wanted poster.

In a letter on 7th September 2016, to the defendant’s solicitor Clyde & Co, I requested a copy of exhibit MH/1, this image was only sent to the court for the Judge’s attention but was never sent to myself.

On the 14th September 2016 I received a copy of exhibit MH/1.

On the 6th October 2016 I received from the court the hearing date of the 9th January 2017, but no Judge’s order and no court seal on the documents. The hearing was schedule for two hours

Without the Judge’s order it was unsure whether the hearing was for one or three hearings been heard together. But I just presumed that the hearing dated 9th January 2017 was for one application.

In a letter on 20th October 2016 from Clyde & Co Laurie Swain asserted that, he had spoken to the court staff and that they agreed to hold the three interim hearings together on the 9th January 2017.

In a letter on 25th October 2016 to the court manager. I complained that, it appears that, the defendant and/or his legal representative had a private audience with the court staff to which I’m not privy to the details of the conversation. I further contended that no rules under the CPR or PD allowed the court staff to override a Judge’s decision and no Judge on the same level can override another Judge’s decision.

Further, In a letter 25th October 2016, I complained to Clyde & Co, I asserted that, I wanted to know what method of communication was used to communicate with the court staff and what was said. They failed to reply and/or to address my complaint.

On the 8th November 2016 I received a letter from the court a Mr. John Lyons. He contended that, we acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 13th October 2016 and write to inform you that it has been refereed with the court file, to the District Judge for consideration. But I had not written a letter to the court on the 13th October 2016 Did not have a clue what the he was talking about.

On the 23rd November 2016 I received a Judgement order from District Judge Price it contented that, upon considering the defendant’s letter dated 13th October 2016, it is ordered that the two application of 22nd February 2016 from the claimant and the application of the 5th May 2016 from the defendant be listed at the hearing on the 9th January 2017 at 14.00 PM with a time estimate of 2 hours in total dated 11th November 2016.

On the 25th November 2016 I sent an email to the court manager, contending that, I note with respect that, the, court has found a way to circumvent the claimant’s objections to all three hearing being heard together. I admire the clinical and legal way it was done, by placing the two stayed hearings of the 22nd February and the 5th May 2016 at the same time and date as the application dated 2nd September 2016. All three hearing dated 9th January 2017 at 2.00pm. I respectfully request that the court hear the application dated 2nd September 2016 before the two stayed hearing dated 22nd February and the 5th May 2016, otherwise the court might be seen to be showing bias in favour of the defendant. I will appreciate a response to confirm this request.

No response was received from the court manager in regards to this request.

On the 29th November 2016, I sent a recorded delivery letter addressed to the court manager at the Royal Court of Justice, County Court Central London at the Thomas More Building, I requested clarification in regards to the application dated 2nd September 2016, whether or not it will be heard on the 9th January 2017. The Judge’s order on the 23rd November 2016 made no mention of the application dated 2nd September 2016.

No response was received from the court manager in regards to this request.

On the 5th December 2016 I made an official complaint on form EX343A, because it appeared to me this was the only way I was going to get an response from the court manager. He or she is compelled to respond to the contents of the complaint. They are not compelled to reply to letters or emails.

On the 15th December 2016 I received a letter which addresses my formal complaint. This letter was from the team leader Mr. Robert Rogers, who contended that. “ In your complaint you note that the court failed to enclose an order with the notice of the hearing, I have consulted the court file and the Judge did not make an order, the Judge just gave directions to list the application for hearing. The Judge’s directions, hearing notice and application are on the court file for the hearing listed 9th January 2017.

On the 20th December 2016 I filed with the court my first witness statement. On the same date I sent a copy of my bundle of evidence with my witness statement to the defendant’s legal representative Clyde & Co.

On the 2nd January 2017 I filed a supplemental witness statement with the court. On the same date I sent a copy of my supplemental witness statement with copies of snap shots taken from the alleged CCTV footage at Tiffany & Co. To the defendant’s legal representative Clyde & Co.

The snap shots contained the three alleged suspects and the alleged sales professional from Tiffany & Co. It can be seen clearly that, the alleged suspect three looks nothing like image 113699, other than he is a black man with a short haircut and no receding hairline, age no more than 35 years old in my opinion.

In a letter dated 4th January 2017, I received a copy of the defendant’s bundle of evidence with their schedule of cost for £3632.80 plus counsel fee.

On Wednesday 4th January 2017, I filed with the court. My bundle of evidences, containing more than 200 pages, them emailed my skeleton argument to the court, for the hearing on the 9th January 2017.

On Friday the 6th January 2017 about 3pm I received a phone call from the court, the message was left on my voicemail. Informing me that the court venue had been change to the Mayors and City of London County Court.

In a letter dated 6th January 2017, received on 7th January 2017 from Clyde & Co informing me that. “ We have been notified by the court that the venue has been changed.”

Contents of the last letter to the IPPC Dated 3-11-2017

It is deplorable and unacceptable that, the Metropolitan Police can act with such blatant disregards for the law, they are there to uphold and enforce. Under the watchful eyes of the IPCC, they are allowed to :

Fabricate, tamper and falsify evidence to present in their sham defence in court. Including false CCTV footage of a phantom suspect 3, with only the side of his head showing. Then showing my manipulated image 113699 in a printed format to the court, entering Tiffany & Co with two other alleged suspects.

Provide false witness statement from an ex-military police officer (Helen Mackay) The European director of security for Tiffany & Co. in order to try and stop an application notice to strike out their defence for provding false and falsified documents and exhibits in the first hearing.

Provide false CRIS Crime report as evidence for their defence. The alleged CRIS Crime report and Helen Mackay’s witness statement is as real as the address given by PC 1183CW. H.Whyte on page 22 of the alleged CRIS crime report (19 Teeside Road) Teeside Road does not exist in London, non-at all and certainly not in walthamstow.

Further, follow the story on pages 23/24, the said PC, actually visited the said address and told his elaborate story about residences, empty flats and the alleged suspect 1, Allessandra Tretto. Who lived at this address and the letters he saw in her name at the said address.

Further, the said PC even had time lines of his activities on the alleged CRIS crime report, pages 21/22 (24-12-2012 :time 18.35), pages 23/24/25 ( 24-12-2012 time ::21.55 and time : 21.57) page 26 (02-1-2013 time: 16.18)

After winning their summary judgement and strikeout. They decided to charge me an extra £10,000 in cost for investigating a non-existence crime.

The wrong doers are PC AD. WATTS, for printing out the false CRIS Crime report. PC Brandon Gibbs, for fabricating evidence in an IPCC investigation. PC 1183CW H.Whyte for falsifying evidence on a CRIS crime report. PC 1422CW –M.Humphrey for falsifying evidence on his VIIDO 3 job sheet and the alleged CRIS crime report. Helen Mackay for providing a false witness statement