Mike said a few years ago he has passed them onto his legal asvisors.
Actually, I sent the photograph in question, to 'Jeremy' who was serving his sentences at 'HMP Full Sutton'. I took this course of action after having spoken to him ('Jeremy') on a pre-booked telephone call the evening before I posted off the police image to him. I sent the photograph and a letter explaining how it had come into my possession! The situation, the way I saw it, was that because of the circumstances by which I took possession of the photograph had unfolded, it had always been my intention to give 'Jeremy' access to it! Had I decided from a very early stage to take the said photograph and to keep it for myself, I would have exposed myself to being charged with the theft of it. As I say, I never intended to permanently deprive 'Essex police', 'CPS', and the ' CCRC' of the photograph in question - required proof that I had taken possession of the said photograph with the specific intention of permanently depriving ' them' of it. I took control of that photograph for the specific intention of making sure that 'Jeremy' had seen it, and that he would have been able to rely upon its content in an appeal! Unfortunately, prison security intercepted my letter with the relevant photographic attachment, and refused 'Jeremy' to read my accompanying letter, or for him to see the photograph of 'Sheila' laid on top of her parents bed with no rifle or bible resting on top of her body or alongside it. The 'Home office' retained my letter and the attached photograph. This incident caused a rift between 'Jeremy' and 'myself', because I had not been aware up until much later that 'Jeremy' had dispensed with the 'pro-bono' services of ' Ewen Smith', and that he had teamed up with ' Giovani De Stefano' ( GDS), and that the governor had banned 'Jeremy' from receiving unopened correspondence under 'Rule 37A'...
