Dear Sir, Peter Imbert C/o House of Lords Westminster
Reference your belated reply to my letters, I am not distressed concerning the lack of protocol by failing to address me in a courteous manner, but your obvious lack of attention to detail is somewhat worrying. You decided to address me as Mr Webb, but my last e mail informed you I was using a back up e mail address, and by including the previous e mails you received from me it would be difficult to ascertain how you could fail to notice that my name was and still is either John Beaufoy, John Squire, or a combination of said names. In actual fact I was christened John Beaufoy Squire, a fact I assume you can verify.
Concerning your request for me to stop sending e mails concerning the Imiela case, I am afraid I cannot do so,to stop writing now would make previous writing of letters to you in order to establish contact a futile exercise equivilant to spending considerable time knocking down a door and then failing to walk through it. I believe as your a member of the house of lords I am allowed to lobby you concerning problems with English Soceity. I believe also that as you list your interests as including English Criminal Justice, it can be considered more than fair that I should write to you. I understand your stance was and still is: Imiela was not on the national DNA and finger print data base, therefore despite having DNA/finger print forensics from two of the rapes scences they could not be matched with Imiela's DNA until he gave voluntry samples a short period before his arrest. However, on the face of it history and logic do not agree with your stance. The grounds for this which have been verified are as follows; Imeila was released from prison in 1996 after serving several years for armed robbery. In 1996 all prisoners who had served over two years were oblidged to give a DNA sample before release. There is also the finger print evidence which should not of required a voluntry sample, as said prints almost certainly should have been on record from the armed robbery records. Now I have thought of four scenarios which could explain the debacle, but all scenarios leave questions to be asked and answered concerning the integrity/competence of English Criminal Justice
1) Imiela's details were on the national data base, but the police failed to match the details after the first, and another early rape thus causing several ladies to be raped at later dates.
2) Imiela was on the data base, but said data base does not work and as such should be abolished.
3) Imiela's details were not on the data base despite english laws stating they should have been.
4) Imiela was on the data base, but the DNA and finger print evidence did not match his details, because he did not rape at least two, and probably most if not all of the ladies. This is the scenario which I have been informed is true. My informer cannot be identified because he/ she is frightened. However, He/ she did inform me that two photo fits were produced, and that the judge orderred one of the photo fits not to be released. He/She also informed me that the Photo Fit ordered to be covered up by the judge had no resemblance to Imiela, and that the one released did not accurately depict Imiela's features. He/She also gave me the identification (name profession) of the person she believed was the rapist, and informed me that Imiela was framed because the actual rapist was/is a legal worker (police/CPS/lawyer/judge/magistrate) who is a freemason, and as such was/is being protected by Kent Police. My investigations into said scenario led me to believe that protection from the police would not by itself work, and if my informer is correct then the actual rapist must be being protected by the following police/cps/Imiela's lawyers/ the judge/and the media as all of the above should (taking into account they should be as inteligent as me) know the "wasn't on the data base stance" had/has serious flaws.
NB. I know the exact profession of the (indicated to me) suspect but cannot divulge it, because it would help kent police to narrow down any list made up of people who they think might be giving me information.
NB Mr Imbert I have already written to all/most main stream media outlets poining out that the "not on the data base" stance which they repeated was flawed, and asking them if they purposefully or accidently helped to cover up said flaw. Despite repeat letters not one of the media outlets replied, and I suspect you should have followed their example. You see having replied to my letter you no longer can plead ignorance, and the fact that rather than starting a new letter you did a reply to a letter which has/had evidence on it, you cannot say you received a letter from me which contained no evidence to back up my allegations.
Concerning your suggestion that I should look at the whole trial, if you send me a transcript I would be more than willing to examine what went on in the trial. However, even if the secondary evidence was/is strong, the questions concerning the main evidence (DNA data base failures) still have to be answerred.
Concerning the independent witness the word "independent" strickly speaking cannot be applied to this lady. It would seem the lady in question had in her own opinion reasons to hate Imiela, and even said hatred did not help her frame Imiela or even confirm the photo fit matched his description. It would seem the best she could do to Implicate Imiela was to confirm he smelled like the alleged smell of the rapist ie he smoked cigarettes.
Concerning the start of my e mail I consider it was started in a very sensible way, ie my first (recorder below ie you should have read it) letter started
Good Morning my Lord:: Below is a section of a speech you made in the house of Lords. Perhaps you would like to explain why Imiela was not on the DNA data base. The Data base started in 1995 and he was released in 1996 (armed robbery) if this is the case the police should not have needed to take a DNAsample from Imiela
John Squire
Then a follow up letter (recorded below) started as follows:
Dear Sir,
I have written a few times asking in you can find flaws in the flaws I found pertaining to the case against Mr Imiela.
It was only when you chose to ignore said letters that I decided to rattle your cage by describing English Police as being corrupt. Please note I did not say all English Police, and I will state now that I believe the lower uniformed ranks are generally not corrupt. This is largly due to the masons not recruiting the lower uniformed officers, and so they do not get involved in masonic corruption. Also please note that during the phone hacking scandal a very senior officer on sunday morning news stated not all 150,000 police officers are corrupt.......hence he agrees with me, and in effect I only reiterated what he said.
Concerning your somewhat ambitious defence of the police ie you stated that my accusation was attroucious let us look at the way in which the accusation was made:
it was not made as an insult, it was made as a reason to send e mails from another account.....exert from e mail below
"Bearing this in mind I have come to the conclusion that Kent Police might be interferring with my john.bsuk e mail account, thus causing you not to receive my previous letters"
The above thoughts stemed from when I became involved in the Stephen Lawrence case. In may 2012 I read several news articles about a proposed enquiry into police (sorry alleged)corruption during the stephen lawrence murder investigation. I came to the conclusion that the detective seargent who was in the pocket of one of the fathers of the alleged murderers would be blamed for all police corruption mainly because he is already retired and living in Spain. Hence I thought I would let Keith Vaz know of the alleged corruption on the part of DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER David Osland. During my investigations I had read on a law forum (wiki Law) that police corruption (during the lawrence murdrer investigation) had spread all the way to the very top. This of course implicated David Osland, and his alleged masonic connections to an accussed family member was given as a reason for said corruption. I also received information that David Osland (identified by name) had lied to the enquiry when he pretended not to know the rules pertaining rules of arrest, and that the media, and members of Stephen Lawrence family legal team knew david osland was lying but decided not to inform the general public,or the Lawrence family. Of course after receiving said information I contacted the Stephen Lawrence charity, asking them to inform the Lawrence family that their legal team cannot be trusted, and asking for doreen lawrence to contact me directly. There was no contact made so I telephoned the Lawrence charity and asked if they had passed my message concerning their legal team directly to Doreen Lawrence as I had requested. The reply I received was that Doreen Lawrence trusts her legal team to deal with all enquiries, so the charity had pasesed the e mail accussing the legal team of witholding information....to the legal team.
I never did establish contact with the Lawrence Family, but at the same time I was trying to contact Keith Vaz. I wrote to him a few times saying I had evidence of Police Corruption (I was not specific) in relation to the Stephen Lawrence case, and as his HASC was investigating police corruption he should contact me. He failed to contact me, so I wrote to every member of the Home Affairs Select Committee requesting contact in order that evidence of police corruption can be passed on. Within a few days of sending the e mails my e mail account was hacked, and my computer caught a virus which destroyed the hard disc drive. I wrote to Yahoo within 12 hours of my account being hacked and they retrieved all my e mails, but when I went to my account they had disappeared again. I wrote to yahoo several more times but they ignorred all letters.
Now Mr Imbert I know you know enough about the law to understand what is written in the above two paragraphs concerning evidence against David Osland is largely hear say, and although I can prove my computer disc drive and e mail account failed in June 2012 I cannot prove that HM Police were responsible. However, this is where the clever bit comes in, you see one of my informers told me that evidence David Osland was lying when he claimed not to understand arrest rules, can be verified by examining (examine his records) other arrests he authorized duriung his police career. According to my informer David Osland, was normally very quick in authorizing arrests, except when he was supporting the suspected criminals. In which case he slowed down the arrest process in order to give the suspects the oportunity to destroy evidence.
NB. My informers cannot be identified, although if you wish to examine wiki law you might be able to trace some of them (good practice to learn how to investigate) One of my informers did imply that Osland was not being paid by criminals, but had hindered other investigations in order to help criminals with masonic connections ie the stephen lawrence murder investigation was probably not the only investigation that was hindered by Osland.
NB pt 2 At this moment of time I am only interested in sorting out the Imiela case. I included history pertaining to Stephen Lawrence to explain the reasonable cause I have/had to believe kent police interfere with e mails, and why I decided to change e mail accounts for my last letter to you
Now we come to your threat/promise to take me to court, you do understand that I am living in Thailand which does hinder court action somewhat, but let us look at your options:
1) You can sue me for defamation of character......but I cannot see that I have insulted you personally, in fact prior to this letter I believe I have been very diplomatic. As explained the reference to police corruption was made in order to rattle your cage, and instigate a reply to earlier e mails I had sent you. Please note saying "English Police are very corrupt" is not calling you corrupt, because I did not state all English Police, and after all you are retired so you do not fit the English Police description. Of course the English Police could take civil action, but a lot of people including police officers call English Police corrupt and the police do not sue said people. There is also the matter of certain criminals on statements of truth implicating specific english police officers as being collaborators in alleged/actual criminal actions, and the police do not start criminal proceedings or sue said people, or even deny said allegations made against them, so why would they sue me for making a non specific undeniably true accusation.
2)You can ask your friends in the police and CPS to prosecute me for harrassing you. To a point you would have a reasonable case, in that my actions have obviously caused you distress, and I have sent you more than two e mails. However, strictly speaking you are not a private citizen, you are a representative of the People and therefore I can petition you concerning misscarriages of justice. Also if you take the harrassment path then you have to prove my letters were unwarranted, and as there would seem to have been a very serious misscarriage of justice ie Imieala it would seem my letters were very warranted.
3) You can ask your friends in the police to frame me for a crime. If you try to do this then I suggest you make a better job that the chief constable of Kent who authorized Mr Daniel West (Police Solicitor) to sign a statement of truth implicating my personal involvement (assaulting a human trafficker) in a crime which supposibly took place in Smarden Kent England on May 10 2008. You see I was at Ashford court in April 2008 and again in June 2008 so it would seem the chief constable of kent thought I must have been in England in May, but I was in Thailand on May 10 2008.The chief constable's representatives have been offerred a copy of my passport to confirm my alibi, but have declined to receive the evidence. They now claim that I was not accused of a crime, it was just a complaint was made that I had personally assaulted Neil Coate.
There was a complaint made about Mr West trying to frame an innocent man by signing a statement of truth which he knew contained lies, but his defence (which the judge found reasonable) was that he was orderred to do so by the Chief Constable of Kent. There was a perjury hearing concerning Mr West's lies, but after Maidstone Court authorized the perjury hearing the Judge at said hearing decided the court was wrong to do so. She said the perjury evidence should not be admissible, and instead Mr West's guilt or innocence should be made by the judge by way of questioning. The Judge also stated the perjury complaint should be examined at the main hearing, instead of at a special "dissmissal of defence because it was purposefully dishonest" (ie Perjury) hearing.....she then cancelled the main hearing.
. Of course you Mr Imbert are still in the position that you can plead ignorance to knowing about evidence which points to Imiela being innocent, and that he was framed by Kent Police. However, having been informed by myself of the probablity of Imiela's innocence, I am afraid as a law maker it is your responsibilty either to prove my evidence to be flawed, or arrange for Imieal to be released on the grounds he was framed. Failure for you to react to the evidence I have supplied would leave you open to a perverting justice charge, and the fact that you threatened me with court action should I continue displaying evidence that Imiela was framed would leave you open to an intimidating a witness charge.
I am also sending this letter to mainstream media outlets to which I have already sent evidence of Imiela's innocence, and who have not reacted: As you (the media) have not questioned my evidence of Imiela's innocence. I suggest you either find flaws in my evidence, or admit it is good evidence and let me know if you knew Imiela was innocent (evidence flawed) when you wrote articles stating the evidence against him was strong. To be honest if you (the media) knew Imiela was being framed, then by supporting the police in said crime makes you worse than the police.
Yours sincerley
John Beaufoy Squire
