If the Magistrates court and the Crown court had dealt with the issues relating to, an officer making another officers witness statement during my trial in September, 1988 (in his absence) and 'tampering' with its contents (without his knowledge), which included disposing of the original page 5 contents, never to see the light of day again, inserted 2 complete 'retyped' pages numbered 5 and 6, and altered the original page numbers, ( 6 to 7, 7 to 8, 8 to 9, and 9 to 10), then as I say, the families of the 96 victims of Hillsboro' on the 15th April 1989 would not have had to wait 27 years after the tragedy for justice to be done...
All the courts had to do, in my case was to accept that it was 'not lawful' for a cop to make another cops witness statement on his behalf, in his absence. It was not lawful for another cop to 'edit' such a statement on behalf of that other officer. It was not lawful for that other officer to 'tamper' with the layout and construction of that witness statement, or to remove altogether one full page of evidence (page 5) simply because it contained two words ('He's down') and 'insert' two full pages of evidence designed to support false allegations that I had supposedly assaulted two police officers by throwing roof tiles at them, causing mickey mouse injuries to them before allegedly jumping from the roof, and vanishing into the night like some sort of cult figure...
DC Richardson and DS Higham, told the court that tried my case, that they had the same notes as one another recorded in their pocketbooks, as though this entitled DC Richardson to make DS Highams witness statement on his behalf without DS Highams knowledge or consent. Later, Richardson 'altered' the format of the 9 page statement he had made for Higham, turning it into a 10 page statement. Two years later (one year after Hillsboro', April 15th, 1989) when interviewed ' under caution' by Greater Manchester police, DS Higham continued to say that both he and DC Richardson had made their notebooks up together before going off duty. But when it was pointed out to DC Richardson that the pocketbook in which his notes were recorded had not been issued to him until the 31st January 1987 (6 days after the event), DC Richardson 'changed' his story by declaring that he had made his notes up on pieces of foolscap paper, which he said he later copied into his pocketbook. When asked by Greater Manchester police as to the whereabouts of those pieces of foolscap paper, DC Richardson said, 'I do not know'...
He did not know of the whereabouts of the original page 5, either...
Cops reinterviewed DS Higham and put it to him, that DC Richardson was now saying that he made notes onto pieces of foolscap paper not directly into his notebook? DS Higham told cops that he (Richardson) did not record his notes onto pieces of foolscap paper, Higham said that DC Richardson had made notes directly into his notebook before both of them had gone off duty in the early hours of Monday the 26th January, 1987...
This could not possibly be true, because DC Richardson's notebook containing the 're-written' notes had not been issued to Richardson until the 31st January 1987...
South Yorkshire is a hotbed of corruption which extends right the way through the Criminal Justice System, from bad apple cop, dodgy local CPS, brain dead Magistrates, and pompous ( I am better than thou) Crown Court Judges who are out of touch with reality...
