Author Topic: The Case Of Mike Tesko  (Read 55535 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39064
Re: The Case Of Mike Tesko
« Reply #1200 on: August 03, 2017, 10:22:AM »
Identification / recognition evidence in this case has been abused! Cops and the CPS have relied upon it to convict me of offences I could not have committed! They acheived that simply by making me the man who visited 2 Ringstone Grove on the evening of Sunday 25th January 1987 at about half past six! As I have said, it is irrelevant whether or not I was that person because the property from all these 10 burgalries was already in the possesssion and under the control of the occupiers of the bungalow! The man they claim was me did not take any stolen property to that bungalow, it was already there!

Then there is the question of how the occupiers were going to pay this man money for the jewellry he supposedly brought to them that night? No large amounts of cash were found at the bungalow, if it had been I feel sure that cops would have returned Mrs Athi her £2000 cash she had stolen! Seems to me the occupiers did not have much cash at their home! Seems to me that the occupiers were in the buisness of selling jewellry that particular week-end, as indicated by Hawkes whilst testifying!
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 10:22:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39064
Re: The Case Of Mike Tesko
« Reply #1201 on: August 03, 2017, 10:30:AM »
There was the evidence that a mini metro motor vehicle was recovered from outside the bungalow in question which cops said could be linked to a girlfriend of mine, but the cops tampered with the registration details on the Insurance Application form, the cops altere the registration number themselves so that it matched a vehicle they recovered! During the trial my counsell tried to expose the deception by calling for the original document to be produced from Insurance house, but the prosecution said it would cost thousands of pounds and mean that the trial would have to stop, because the computer which contained the necessary record would need to be reprogrammed! These are the entent to which the corruption and dishonesty of South Yorkshire police and the local CPS are prepared to go! The lot of them are lower than common criminals!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39064
Re: The Case Of Mike Tesko
« Reply #1202 on: August 04, 2017, 08:17:AM »
Such was the reliability of cops identification/recognition evidence against me who attended the bungalow incident, that they had to be shown photographs of me, which makes a mockery of the system used, they all said they knew me and had had dealings with me in the past, which obviously did not go down well with the jury! They just manipulate everything. Here's one of the photographs they circulated amongst themselves so that cops could testify and say 'yeah, thats Mike Teskowski, who I saw, etc, etc, etc'...

They're not supposed to show single photographs of suspects in identification procedures, but here is evidence that insofar as I was concerned 'they did'...

Note, that my picture is stamped, 'TO BE USED FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY AND RETURNED TO HEADQUARTERS'...

It clearly states 'IDENITIFICATION PURPOSES', not recognition purposes!

This is precisely how the cops deceived the court in my case, 'they claimed to have recognised me, here there, and everywhere..'
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 08:37:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39064
Re: The Case Of Mike Tesko
« Reply #1203 on: August 04, 2017, 08:39:AM »
Senior South Yorkshire Cops were behind the campaign to frame me with 'identification/recognition' evidence, encouraged by their partners in crime, the local CPS!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39064
Re: The Case Of Mike Tesko
« Reply #1204 on: August 04, 2017, 08:43:AM »
Senior South Yorkshire Cops were behind the campaign to frame me with 'identification/recognition' evidence, encouraged by their partners in crime, the local CPS!

The authorities just do what they want whether its right or wrong to do it!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39064
Re: The Case Of Mike Tesko
« Reply #1205 on: August 04, 2017, 09:07:AM »
The authorities just do what they want whether its right or wrong to do it!

I can still vividly remember being on trial at Sheffield Crown Court (at Bank Street) in September 1988, as if it happened yesterday, and how my defence to the allegations were significantly hampered by lying cops, and the deplorable prosecutor (who is now a Crown Court Judge)! They not only relied on faked identification/recognition evidence, and doctored witness statements, and falsified notebook entries, and tampered with a car insurance application form in the name of a girlfriend of mine, and tampered with exhibits, but they denied me being able to rely on previous dealings I had had with the police where it had been proven that they tried unsuccessfully to frame me! The case when two cops claimed to have been sat inside a police observation van in Monkspring Barnsley at 5.20pm on Sunday the 22nd January 1986, was one such case, that I was prevented from relying on, but the cops were able to say they knew me because they had had previous dealings with me! Thats how corrupt the system is/was. There's one rule for that lot and their witnesses, and another rule for suspects! It doesn't seem to matter that the observation van DS Shephered and DC Caulfield said they were sat inside when they allegedly identified me in a stolen motor vehicle outside target premises one hour and ten minutes before the observation van was actually parked up in position at that location!

The jury should have been told about this episode, but I was prevented from introducing it in support of my defence which was that cops were framing me for 10 burgalries and two assaults I had not committed, based upon dishonest cop identification/recognition evidence!!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39064
Re: The Case Of Mike Tesko
« Reply #1206 on: August 04, 2017, 09:09:AM »
I shouted my innocence from the roof tops so to speak, but the system was deaf, it did not want to know, it did not want to hear allegations of dishonesty on the part of the criminals in uniform! No matter what wrong cops did or had done to me, the system treated these cops as public heroes!
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 09:10:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39064
Re: The Case Of Mike Tesko
« Reply #1207 on: August 04, 2017, 09:24:AM »
I shouted my innocence from the roof tops so to speak, but the system was deaf, it did not want to know, it did not want to hear allegations of dishonesty on the part of the criminals in uniform! No matter what wrong cops did or had done to me, the system treated these cops as public heroes!

It made no difference whatsoever, that the occupier of the bungalow, was originally charged with the 10 counts of burgalry in January 1987, which they later charged me with in June 1987! If I had been 'that' man who visited Ringstone Grove at about half past six on that January evening, and I had brought the entire proceeds there contained in a woolworths carrier bag, why would the cops have charged Douglas McHale with committing the 10 burgalries? Because in those circumstances he wouldn't have been the burglar, he'd have been an handler of stolen goods! How astonishing then that when his case came to trial he should plead 'guilty' to an alternative indictment of 'handling stolen goods', which effectively paved the way for me to be put on trial as the man who had supposedly brought all the proceeds from those 10 burgalries to that bungalow on that particular occasion, aforementioned! Well, it can now be proved that all that property from those 10 burgalries had not been brought there by that person! Property which was stolen from the homes of at least Mrs Athi, Mr Ibbottson, and Mr Carr, was already at the bungalow prior to the man who arrived there later that evening had arrived there! If the same person was responsible for the commissioning of all 10 burgalries as contended by the prosecutions case and property stolen during at least three of these burgalries was already there at the bungalow under the control and in the possession of the occupiers of that bungalow, how can it be possible for the man who visited the bungalow to be the lone burglar, as alleged?

It doesn't add up..
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 09:25:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39064
Re: The Case Of Mike Tesko
« Reply #1208 on: August 04, 2017, 09:45:AM »
I was also prevented from relying upon another case which South Yorkshire police and the local South Yorkshire CPS had instigated against me, a case which I refer to as 'The Grenoside Woods' matter! I was prevented from mentioning it during my September 1988 trial as part of my defence, because the prosecution intended to put me on trial for that matter at some stage after the current trial had been concluded! The basis of my defence in that particular case, was that I was not the man cops claimed to have seen in a wood retrieving a sack full of keys on Friday the 15th August 1986! Again, it was an allegation against me involving identification/recognition evidence by cops! This, however, was not how I intended to defend myself, that is not simply by declaring that I was not that man on that occasion, but moreover that cops had attributed stolen property to a sack full of jewellry buried in the wood, which did not get stolen until after the recovery of the aforementioned sack! The circumstances of which included the find or recovery of the said sack and contents on Tuesday 12th August 1985, which the finder took to Ecclesfield Police station that date, and he took cops back to the spot where the loot had been found! Cops replaced the loot with old keys and reburied it and carried out a 24 hour surveillance, which cops claimed concluded on Friday the 15th, with the visit of the man they claimed was me escaping in the wood with the sack and contents! The odd thing was, however, that when these allegations were put to me by police in June 1987, the contents included property that was not stolen during the course of a burgalry until Wednesday the 13th August 1985!

Arising out of these matters I was charged with 19 counts of burgalry, the sack containing property from all 19 including the burgalry which occurred on Wednesday 13th August...

I was confident that if the matter went to trial, that I would be found 'NOT GUILTY'...
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 09:47:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39064
Re: The Case Of Mike Tesko
« Reply #1209 on: August 04, 2017, 09:55:AM »
I was also prevented from relying upon another case which South Yorkshire police and the local South Yorkshire CPS had instigated against me, a case which I refer to as 'The Grenoside Woods' matter! I was prevented from mentioning it during my September 1988 trial as part of my defence, because the prosecution intended to put me on trial for that matter at some stage after the current trial had been concluded! The basis of my defence in that particular case, was that I was not the man cops claimed to have seen in a wood retrieving a sack full of keys on Friday the 15th August 1986! Again, it was an allegation against me involving identification/recognition evidence by cops! This, however, was not how I intended to defend myself, that is not simply by declaring that I was not that man on that occasion, but moreover that cops had attributed stolen property to a sack full of jewellry buried in the wood, which did not get stolen until after the recovery of the aforementioned sack! The circumstances of which included the find or recovery of the said sack and contents on Tuesday 12th August 1985, which the finder took to Ecclesfield Police station that date, and he took cops back to the spot where the loot had been found! Cops replaced the loot with old keys and reburied it and carried out a 24 hour surveillance, which cops claimed concluded on Friday the 15th, with the visit of the man they claimed was me escaping in the wood with the sack and contents! The odd thing was, however, that when these allegations were put to me by police in June 1987, the contents included property that was not stolen during the course of a burgalry until Wednesday the 13th August 1985!

Arising out of these matters I was charged with 19 counts of burgalry, the sack containing property from all 19 including the burgalry which occurred on Wednesday 13th August...

I was confident that if the matter went to trial, that I would be found 'NOT GUILTY'...

The really annoying thing about all these miscarriages of justice, is that no bent bad apple cop ever gets prosecuted - instead, they get promoted!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12407
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: The Case Of Mike Tesko
« Reply #1210 on: August 04, 2017, 12:58:PM »
yes thats the most anoying thing.