chapter four
CHAPTER FOUR. DID THE POLICE AND CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE LIE?
Did The Police and Crown Prosecution Service lie? Did they deliberately hide exculpatory evidence in the Lucy Letby trial? I say – YES THEY DID!
You may think that this is implausible. However, allow me to provide some instances of criminal cases where the Police and The Crown Prosecution Service were “found out” in deliberately (or perhaps by oversight – NO! I DON’T THINK SO!) failing to reveal evidence that would have proven the absolute innocence of the accused in a criminal trial. In the book Lucy is Innocent, by Paul Bamford SECOND EDITION (which I would strongly recommend!) on pages 126 to 127 nine cases are cited where The CPS withheld exonerating evidence. These cases include the following
(1). Andrew Malkinson:- The CPS knew of exonerating DNA evidence, but deliberately withheld it.
(2). A High Court Judge, Jeremy Gold, complained of “lamentable failures” of evidence disclosure by The CPS in a rape case.
(3). Liam Allan:- Exonerating evidence on his mobile phone was held back by The CPS in a rape case. (In this case, it just MIGHT have been a genuine (really lazy!) oversight – NO! I DON’T THINK SO!)
(4). Samson Makele:- Exonerating photos on his mobile phone. The CPS refused to make these photos available.
(5). Petruta-Cristina Bosoanca:- The defence team were denied access to the police doctor’s report that would exonerate her, and also other “serious failings”.
(6). Sam Hallam:- released when The Court of Appeal heard that The MET and The CPS had withheld evidence.
(7). Conrad Jones:- The CPS failed to disclose CCTV evidence showing that he was in another place when the crime was committed.
For fuller details of these above cases, and two others, see Paul Bamford’s book Lucy is Innocent – but be certain to get only THE SECOND EDITION! (which has far more material than the first edition). (I strongly recommend this book!)
Here is a further example of The CPS failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defence, recounted in the book Math on Trial – How Numbers Get Used and Abused in The Courtroom, by mathematicians Leila Schneps and Coralie Colmez, published by Basic Books, pages 1 to 21:- Sally Clarke had three babies, two of which died. She was accused of killing them, and convicted, and put in prison. While preparing an appeal, the defence team requested the medical records of the babies. “AFTER MONTHS OF LEGAL EFFORTS, when the records were finally, RELUCTANTLY made available - - - THESE DOCUMENTS HAD NEVER BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENCE - - - the LETHAL bacterium Staphylococcus aureus had been found in (the baby’s) body - - - (the baby) MOST CERTAINLY COULD HAVE DIED - - - HIS DEATH SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AN UNEXPLAINED CRIB DEATH.” (My capitals.) (After this revelation, Sally Clarke was released from prison.)
The unfortunate fact is that the police HAVE to falsify the evidence sometimes in order to obtain a conviction. They may feel absolutely certain in their own minds that the supposed perpetrator is guilty, but they need more evidence, otherwise the perp will walk away laughing. It is necessary to balance public order against precise justice. We cannot have disorder on our streets. We cannot have rampant crime in our cities. The police do a really great job. The problem is that sometimes – just sometimes, as in The Lucy Letby case, they get it really badly wrong.
Let me give you an example from my own personal experience. I was “fitted up” by the police! I was a hot headed “young tearaway” in my teens, and I had made a threat of harm to property. During an argument, I shouted “I’ll burn your f-(expletive deleted) house to the f-(expletive deleted) ground, you f-(expletive deleted) c-(expletive deleted)”. No witnesses, except the one person to whom I made the threat. My word against his. The police believed his account, but they knew that they would never get a conviction. They knew that I was “slippery customer”, quite ready to lie in court, and vigorously protest my innocence, and probably accuse my accuser of some wrongdoing, just to “muddy the waters”. Nevertheless, they wanted me to “go down”, just to teach me a lesson. They called to my house, and asked me to go down to the police station, “just to sign some legal documents”. When I got there, they asked me to remove my jacket, and then took this garment to another room. When they came back they were laughing uproariously. “What’s this in your jacket pocket” they asked me. They had “planted” drugs on me, putting them in my jacket pocket, and crushing some of them to powder, which adhered to the inside of the pocket. They actually said “We’ve got you bang to rights my son!” – just like they used to say in episodes of The Sweeny on British TV! I spent a month on remand in Brixton Prison. It actually wasn’t all that bad! The other prisoners, far from being the mindless thugs of popular mythology, were, in my experience, quite decent chaps, and quite entertaining, with their endless stories of their nefarious activities. The newspapers most read by the prisoners were The Times, and The Telegraph – not The Sun, as I would have expected. A lot of them complained about having been “fitted up” by “The Bill”, although whether you could believe their protestations of innocence, I cannot say. One remand prisoner, who was an elderly homeless man, had been arrested for stealing a bottle of milk from a doorstep. He told me that, when the police arrested him, they “beat him up”. I believe that his account was true. A further account of police violence came to my personal attention. A close friend of mine, a highly intelligent and educated person, who was in his sixties at the time, was arrested for some drunken (non-violent) offence – I don’t know exactly why – but it would have been pretty trivial, because this person was a law abiding, non-violent citizen, of some considerable wealth. This person had a sense of humour, and obviously said something that the police did not find funny. He was “beaten up” in his cell, blows in the abdomen, so as to leave no marks. I absolutely believe his account. He had no reason to lie about it to me.
The police were absolutely right to “fit me up”! I needed a “short sharp shock”, and they gave it to me. I got a £50 fine, which my father paid, and I stuck to “the straight and narrow” ever since. The police have to maintain order on the streets, and have to “bend the rules” sometimes in order to attain this objective.
Allow me to provide some further instances of the police being (shall we say) not entirely honest. The following are some quotes from the book The Establishment and How They get Away With It, by Owen Jones (columnist for the Guardian), published by Penguin Books, 2015
Page 126:- “The police demonstrate an unnerving capacity to resort to cover-ups and conspiracies.”
Page 129:- “South Yorkshire Police - - - - allegations of perjury, perverting the course of justice - - - fabricating evidence, and instituting a cover-up - - - - - a signature on a police statement had been forged.”
Page 130:- “The police - - - a culture of blame-shifting and cover-up.”
Page 133:- “The lies fed to media outlets by senior police officers”
Page 134:- “The South Yorkshire Police - - - - - fitting people up”
Page 144:- “The police, supposedly charged with bringing the murderers of Stephen Lawrence to justice, were in fact using resources to discredit his family.”
Pages 105 to 106:- “He asked her - - - whether she had ever paid police officers, and she replied that the newspaper had. It was an illegal practice.”
The following quote is form the book The English Legal System resources Workbook, by Jacqueline Martin, Published by Hodder and Stoughton, 10th impression, 2005, page 78:- “Evaluation of The Criminal Cases Review Commission - - - the Commission - - - has received 2325 submissions - - - More than 1000 are still under consideration.” (My comment:- Clearly a lot of convicted persons feel that their conviction was unfair and unwarranted.)
This comment is from a U-Tube video.
Lucy Letby's lawyers to share 'new evidence' they claim 'significantly undermines' convictions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXuRLIPI9DY
Lucy Letby’s new barrister, Mark McDonald, states that Doctor Dewi Evans has made a new report, which the prosecution is resisting giving to the defence. (My highlighting.) (My comment:- This is clearly exculpatory evidence, which the prosecution is trying to “hide”.)
I will come shortly to the exculpatory evidence in the Lucy Letby case that The Police and The CPS (deliberately? YES, I THINK ABSOLUTELY DELIBERATELY) hid from the defence. But first, I want to ask the following question:- Did the chief prosecution Doctor Dewi Evans deliberately LIE to the court? I say (in my opinion) YES!
QUESTION:- Is this really plausible that a trained scientist would deliberately lie just to obtain a fee? If you think that this is implausible, here are some quotes from my book The Dishonesty of Science (subtitle – Why We Should Distrust Everything That Scientists Tell Us), by Roger Elliott, available on Amazon.
This quote is from the book Eyes Wide Open. How To Make Smart Decisions in a Confusing World, by Noreen Hertz, published by William Collins, 2013, pages 88 to 89:-
“UP TO A THIRD OF SCIENTISTS ADMIT CHANGING THE - - - RESULTS OF A STUDY IN RESPONSE TO THE PRESSURES FROM A FUNDING SOURCE - - - EIGHTY ONE PERCENT OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH TRAINEES SAID THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO - - - FABRICATE DATA TO - - - WIN A GRANT. A recent study - - - revealed that OVER FORTY PERCENT OF - - - - SCIENTIFIC PAPERS - - - HAVE MISREPRESENTED THE ACTUAL FINDINGS OF RESEARCH, LARGELY DUE TO FUNDING PRESSURE. - - - - Numerous studies have shown that INDUSTRY SPONSORED CLINICAL TRIALS ARE OFTEN BIASED IN FAVOUR OF THE SPONSOR.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from (the magazine) Scientific American, issue for December 2012, pages 43 to 49. Article:- Is Drug Research Trustworthy?, by Charles Seife:- “The pharmaceutical industry - - - funnels large sums of money - - - - into the pockets of independent medical researchers who are doing work - - - - on the drugs these firms are making.” - - - The article quotes Eric Campbell:- “(In) Academic research - - - - industry relationships - - - (are) a ubiquitous affair.” The article continues:- “A pharmaceutical manufacturer has an article drafted, and pays a scientist - - - - to put his - - - name on it and submit it to a peer reviewed journal.” The article quotes Marcia Angell (former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine:- “TO BUY A DISTINGUISHED, SENIOR ACADEMIC RESEARCHER - - - that’s worth 100,000 salespeople.” The article continues:- “DRUG INDUSTRY MONEY IS - - - UNDERMINING SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY.” The article tells of a 1998 study in The New England Journal of Medicine which found a “strong association” between researchers conclusions about the safety of calcium channel blockers - - - and their financial relationships with the firms producing the drugs - - - - a trail of biased research and cash to scientists - - - - 87 PERCENT OF RESEARCHERS WHO EXPRESSED FAVOURABLE VIEWS OF - - - DIABETES DRUG AVANDIA, DESPITE - - - RISK OF HEART ATTACKS, HAD SOME FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT WITH THE DRUG MANUFACTURER - - - - THERE IS TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL FOR CORRUPTION.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from (the magazine) New Scientist, January 13th, 2018, pages 35 to 37. Article:- Against The Tide In An Ocean of Opioids, by Wendy Glaucer.
“Researchers who blamed the epidemic (of opioid deaths) on the rise in prescription opioids found their work “ripped apart” in - - - academic journals - - - MANY CRITICS WERE LATER REVEALED TO HAVE BEEN PAID HANDSOMELY BY THE FIRMS MAKING THE DRUGS - - - - FIRMS, NOTABLY PURDUE PHARMA AGREED TO PAY 600 MILLION (US) DOLLARS IN FINES, AFTER PLEADING GUILTY TO MISLEADING THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE ADDICTIVE NATURE OF OPIOIDS. - - - - - Kolodny - - - interviewed Russell Portenoy - - - -WHO BENEFITED FROM SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS FROM OPIOID MANUFACTURERES. In a surprisingly candid moment, Portenoy admits to Kolodny “BECAUSE THE PRIMARY GOAL WAS TO DE-STIGMATISE (OPIOIDS), WE OFTEN LEFT EVIDENCE BEHIND”. (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Forbidden Science, edited by J. Douglas Kenyon, published by Bear and Company, Rochester, Vermont, USA, page 3:-
According to a report published in the British journal Nature, ONE IN THREE SCIENTISTS, in an anonymous survey, ADMITTED TO BREAKING - - in the last three years - - - RULES DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE HONESTY OF THEIR WORK. - - - The misbehaviours - - - range from claiming credit for someone else’s work to CHANGING STUDY RESULTS DUE TO PRESSURE FROM A SPONSOR.” (My capitals.)
The unfortunate fact is that scientists are mostly willing to lie, or bend the truth for sufficient money. Every man has his price, and (in my opinion) Dr Dewi Evans’ “price” is the money that he was paid to be the “expert” witness in this case.
A good deal of exculpatory evidence was hidden from the jury by The Police, by The Crown Prosecution Service, and by the chief prosecution witness (either deliberately or “accidentally”). The various chapters of this book detail various exculpatory evidence that was deliberately (“or accidentally”) hidden from the jury.