The Case Of Mike Tesko

[mike tesko]

During my trial, DS Higham, produced his pocketbook, serial number, 44854, it had been printed in blue ink, despite the fact that the pocketbook manufacturers normally printed serial numbers in black embossed ink. He also told the court that this pocket book (44854) had been issued to him by a senior officer, on or before the 9th January 1987, because the first entries contained within it commenced on the 9th January...

DC Richardson, told the court during my trial, that he made the notes up in his pocketbook relating to these matters during the early hours of 26th January 1987, in the company of DS Higham...

[mike tesko]

During my trial, DS Higham, produced his pocketbook, serial number, 44854, it had been printed in blue ink, despite the fact that the pocketbook manufacturers normally printed serial numbers in black embossed ink. He also told the court that this pocket book (44854) had been issued to him by a senior officer, on or before the 9th January 1987, because the first entries contained within it commenced on the 9th January...

DC Richardson, told the court during my trial, that he made the notes up in his pocketbook relating to these matters during the early hours of 26th January 1987, in the company of DS Higham...

Years later, after they were both arrested and interviewed under caution, it transpired, that Ds Higham deceived the court into believing that the notes recorded in his pocketbook had started to be recorded on, or before the 9th August 1985, but police records showed that he was not issued with pocketbook, serial number, 44854, until 17th January 1987, so his credibility as an honest witness, is fundamentally undermined...

Similarly, when DC Richardson was arrested and interviewed, police records showed that the pocketbook inside which was recorded the events of 25th January 1985, in which he made the same notes as DS Higham, had not been issued to DC Richardson until 31st January, 1987, and therefore, he could not have made his notes up in this pocketbook, as stated on oath during my trial, because the said pocketbook had not yet been issued to him by that stage. Upon being confronted during interview about these facts, DC Richardson suddenly changed his story, he then said that he had made handwritten notes on a piece of foolscap paper, which he later copied into his pocketbook once it had been issued...

[mike tesko]

DS Higham was interviewed again, and re-questioned about the occasion he made his notes up with DC Richardson, during the early hours of 26th January 1987. Police produced a copy of his trial testimony, in which he swore on the holy bible, that both he and DC Richardson had made their notes up, in their respective pocketbooks, before going off duty. He was asked by police, if the evidence he had given during my trial regarding this had been true - he reiterated that it was...

Police then put it to DS Highsm, that DC Richardson had told them that he made his notes up on a piece of foolscap paper, which he later copied into his pocketbook, issued several days later, to which DS Higham responded by saying that both he and DC Richardson had made their notes up together in their respective pocketbooks, and that DC Richardson had not used a piece of foolscap paper in his presence, Higham told police that DC Richardson had written up notes in his pocket book...

[mike tesko]

These two police officers, (Richardson and Higham) both told the court during my trial that they both made their notes up, together in their respective pocketbooks before going off duty at 1am, on the 26th January 1885, but that would have been impossible because Richardsons pocketbook was not issued to him until 31st January 1987...

[mike tesko]

Whilst being quizzed by investigating officers, DS Higham told them that the incident on the 25th January, 1987, was the only occasion he had worked with DC Richardson on any police investigation, and that he had not seen or worked with him ever since making notes up together and going off duty at 1am, on the 26th January 1987...

How then, had DS Highams signature managed to become signed in the pages of DC Richardsons pocketbook, before they went off duty at 1am on 26th January 1987, considering that the pocketbook in question had not been issued to Richardson, until 31st January 1987...

[mike tesko]

By a reliance upon what DS Higham told the investigating officers, that DC Richardson had made entries into a pocketbook, with himself, before both had gone off duty by 1am, on 26th January, 1987, there must have existed, another pocketbook belonging to DC Richardson, into which he wrote handwritten notes...

[mike tesko]

By a reliance upon what DS Higham told the investigating officers, that DC Richardson had made entries into a pocketbook, with himself, before both had gone off duty by 1am, on 26th January, 1987, there must have existed, another pocketbook belonging to DC Richardson, into which he wrote handwritten notes...

DC Richardsons explanation about using pieces of foolscap paper to make his notes on, which he later copied into his pocketbook, once it had been issued on 31st January 1987, is nothing but a red herring, thrown into the mix because Richardson had been caught out lying on oath, and deceiving the court which tried me...

Indeed, during one of Richardsons police interviews, they put it to him that his explanation about using pieces of foolscap paper, to make notes up with DS Higham, was different to what he had said under oath during my trial. When asked of the whereabouts of these hand written notes on pieces of foolscap paper, Richardson told police. He did not know where they were, or what had happened to them...

Police asked Richardson, if what he had told the court whilst testifying that he had made notes up into his pocketbook, with DS Higham, which entitled him to make a witness statement for the other officer in the other officers absence, had deceived the jury into accepting his evidence as being true, when it was not, Richardson acknowledged this to be the case...

[mike tesko]

DC Richardsons explanation about using pieces of foolscap paper to make his notes on, which he later copied into his pocketbook, once it had been issued on 31st January 1987, is nothing but a red herring, thrown into the mix because Richardson had been caught out lying on oath, and deceiving the court which tried me...

Indeed, during one of Richardsons police interviews, they put it to him that his explanation about using pieces of foolscap paper, to make notes up with DS Higham, was different to what he had said under oath during my trial. When asked of the whereabouts of these hand written notes on pieces of foolscap paper, Richardson told police. He did not know where they were, or what had happened to them...

Police asked Richardson, if what he had told the court whilst testifying that he had made notes up into his pocketbook, with DS Higham, which entitled him to make a witness statement for the other officer in the other officers absence, had deceived the jury into accepting his evidence as being true, when it was not, Richardson acknowledged this to be the case...

He told police, his evidence may have deceived some people...

[mike tesko]

When police eventually seized, DS Highams pocketbook, it had its original cover back on, the serial number on the front cover of this pocketbook, 44854, was made in black colored embossed ink, whereas, the pocketbook cover fitted to his pocketbook during the time he testified at my trial, had a serial number, 44854, in blue ink...

Clearly, someone had replaced the original cover back onto the body of a book containing his notes about his involvement in my case. This became self evident because there were additional staple holes where Higham or those helping him, had tried to fit the body of the re-written book, with the original cover of the black inked serial number, 44854...

[mike tesko]

Police sent the recovered version of DS Highams pocketbook, bearing the black ink coloured serial number, 44854, to be examined by Phillip Rydeard, expert at Chorley Lab', in Lancashire. Upon examination he concluded that the cover of the book bearing the black ink serial number 44854, had been separated from the body of the book, or vice versa...

[mike tesko]

As I say, Higham swapped the covers back over, so that the body of the book which contained his evidence at my trial, was back inside the original cover of the one bearing the original black inked serial number, 44854...

Phillip Rydeard was correct...

[mike tesko]

At my last appeal, the judges said that they were not going to consider all the grounds of appeal I had submitted, and that they would only hear the appeal based on fresh scientific evidence...

[mike tesko]

At my last appeal, the judges said that they were not going to consider all the grounds of appeal I had submitted, and that they would only hear the appeal based on fresh scientific evidence...

Michael Mansfield, QC, told me this in a conference at the court of appeal, just before the appeal got under way, I was not very happy to be told this, but there was nothing I could do about it, at such a late stage...

The appeal therefore got underway, the court choosing only to listen to scientific evidence of Phillip Rydeard for the defense, and three other experts representing the prosecutions case, all of whom had examined pocketbook 44854 at one time or another between 1990 and 1993... 

[mike tesko]

Today, I launch the case to clear my name, regarding the 10 convictions of burglary that I was convicted of by a 10/2 majority verdict at Sheffield Crown court, in September, 1988, for which I received sentences totalling 54 years...

[mike tesko]

I have already been through the CCRC system once - it is a long hard process designed to put victims off, they (CCRC) are not on the victims side, but they support the police and the judiciary as much as they can to try and prevent miscarriages of injustice becoming exposed. I personally feel they (CCRC) are not there to help anyone who is a victim of a miscarriage of justice, they exist only to slow the process down designed to prevent any of these cases coming to court, in existence to try and protect the integrity of the so called criminal justice system...

After my last application, the CCRC contacted me and said they were going to destroy everything they had on their files about my case. I wrote back to them, and sent emails to them asking them not to destroy anything because I would be submitting a fresh application in due course (I have retained records of all such correspondence). These people (CCRC) act like criminals, they are constantly trying to deter victims of a miscarriage of injustice from being able to prove that the corrupted system has helped to convict them, with corrupted officials amongst themselves, guided by corrupted judiciary, home office, and police dictators...

We must all persevere and never lose sight of what these ANIMALS have done to those of us who are the true victims...

I stood up to them at trial, and I was felled...

I stood up to the CCRC mistakenly thinking that at last justice would be seen to be done, but they felled me (AGAIN)...

I have now risen tall again, I am ready for those (CCRC) BASTARDS; they are corrupt, they are dishonest, they are despicable, they are ANIMALS, worse than the terrorists amongst us, they are all a big piece of shite, a pile of vile puke, they have no honour, they have no dignity, they lie, they falsify, they fabricate, they smirk, they ignore, they pretend, they lead us on, they talk shit, and are lower than a snakes belly...

I am back...

I ain't done for yet, get ready you set of low life criminal civil servants rat bags, who are the scum of the earth...

THE CCRC NEED TO BE DISBANDED, because they are a disgrace, they obstruct justice more than assist it, in the pursuit of trying to ensure that in all cases, that justice was done at the trial, or any appeal stage...