In the various successful prosecutions of myself by the police the following serious anomalies exist, which serve to contradict the suggestion that I was the person, (a) responsible for committing all the offences, linked or associated with the 10 burglaries arising out of the Ringstone Grove matters (bungalow job), and or (b) responsible for handling stolen goods from 19 burglaries arising out of the Grenoside wood matters (bag in the wood job), based upon the suggestion that in so far as matter (a) above was concerned, the same man had brought all the proceeds of these 10 burglaries to the scene of this incident at 2 Ringstone Grove, at about 6.30pm on Sunday the 25th January 1987, and further, that (b) all the property from these 19 burglaries had been found buried beneath the roots of a tree in a sack, discovered by a member of the public using a metal detector, on Tuesday, the 12th August 1986. The fact of the matter, is that in case (a), The occupants of 2 Ringstone Grove, already had possession of at least one item (possibly all) from at least one of the 10 burglaries in their possession earlier in the day of Sunday the 25th January 1987, namely a 24" gold curb linked necklet (item 59), which the occupants of the bungalow admitted to being in possession of before or prior to the arrival of the man to the bungalow later that same evening, of the 25th January 1987. In particular, that the occupants of the bungalow had left home earlier that morning intent on selling items of jewellery to someone who they refuse to name who lived in the Selby area. they had taken with them 3 items of jewellery with a view of trying to generate monies by selling these items to this other unnamed person. they sold 1 of these items to this person before returning home to the bungalow at just before 6.30pm, that same day, bringing with them 2 items unsold. 1 of the 2 items they were unsuccessful at selling on that occasion, was item 59, which was placed on top of the microwave in the kitchen upon entering the bungalow after their arrival back home before the man who later escaped via the roof had even arrived upon the scene. Item 59 (the 24" gold coloured curb link necklet) was later identified by one of the 10 complainants (Mrs Athi) as being property which belonged personally to her, which had been stolen during the course of a burglary at her home address less than 48 hours previously. The case presented to the jury at my trial, was that the same person had committed all these 10 burglaries, carried out in the same parts of a Sheffield suburb, and that the burglar was the man who came to the scene at about 6.30pm, on that Sunday evening, bringing with him all the proceeds from the aforementioned burglaries contained in a woolworths plastic carrier bag. Yet, at least 1 item stolen during the course of those burglaries was already in the possession of the occupants of 2 Ringstone Grove, long before the arrival of the man that Sunday evening. If that man had been the same person responsible for having committed these 10 burglaries, he certainly had brought Mrs Athi's (item 59) 24" gold curb link necklet to the scene at 6.30pm that same evening, because the occupants of the bungalow already had it with them beforehand. To make matters worse (for the prosecutions case), Leslie Hawkes testified to the effect that item 59 (the gold 24" curb link necklet) which police recovered from on top of the microwave in the kitchen, belonged to her partner, Douglas McHale, who had purchased it a couple of years previously. Yet, as indicated earlier, Mrs Athi had identified this item (59) as part of the proceeds stolen during the course of a burglary carried out at her home less than 48 hours prior to police seizing item 59 from the scene. Now item 59 was part of my defence to the allegation that (1) I was not the man who had arrived there at the scene at about 6.30pm, that Sunday, the 25th January, 1987, (2) that I not being the man in question, had not brought any of the proceeds from any of these 10 burglaries to the scene on that occasion, and that (3) existence and recovery of item 59 (the gold 24" curb link necklet) from the microwave top in the kitchen at the scene was evidence which supported that contention, since by the occupants own admission the couple which resided there had admitted to being in possession of item 59 from a long time previous to the arrival of the man later in the day. More importantly, Leslie Hawkes (one of the occupants) claimed that item 59 belonged to her partner (Douglas McHale), who had purchased it two years previously. The situation was worsened, by the inclusion of item 59, as part of the contents of a woolworth carrier bag found concealed under a bedroom mattress, which police alleged had been brought to the scene that very evening. My case, was that the evidence was being fabricated against me, by claiming (1) that I was the man who had committed all these 10 burglaries, (2) that I was the man who had brought all the proceeds from these 10 burglaries to the scene contained in that woolworths carrier bag, after 6.30pm on Sunday the 25th January, 1987, and (3), I was the man who escaped from the scene via the rooftop.
In support of my case that I was not the burglar, nor the man at the scene on that occasion, who had brought all the proceeds from all 10 burglaries as alleged, was the fact (1) that Mrs Athi had identified item 59, the 24" gold coloured curb link necklet as property which had been stolen at the time of the burglary at her home less than 48 hours prior to police seizing it from on top of the microwave in the kitchen at the scene, and (2) the occupants of the bungalow from whence it was recovered were claiming that item 59 belonged to them. In addition, two other items which were stolen during the course of 2 more of these 10 burglaries, were found concealed at the bungalow, one such item was found concealed behind some central heating pipes inside a closet cupboard, making it even more obvious that all the proceeds from these 10 burglaries could not possibly have been brought to the scene at 6.30pm that evening of Sunday, the 25th January 1987. This item which police recovered hidden from behind some central heating pipes in a closet at the scene, was identified by one of the 10 complainants, a Mr Ibbottson. A 3rd item, found concealed in another part of the premises other than amongst the woolworth carrier bag under the mattress of a bed, belonged to a Mr Carr. Leslie Hawkes testified during my trial that these 2 additional items belonged to her husband, neither of these 2 items was included as having been part of the woolworth carrier bag, but nevertheless, the bottom line was that 3 items had been identified by 3 of the 10 complainants, as being property belonging to them, which had been stolen during burglaries of their homes carried out less than 48 hours prior to police seizing them at the scene. In his summing up, the trial judge, Mr Justice Hunt, told the jury that Mrs Athi must be mistaken when claiming that item 59, the 24" gold coloured curb link necklet belonged to her, because the occupant of the bungalow, Leslie Hawkes, had testified confirming that it belonged to her partner, Douglas McHale, who had purchased it 2 years previously, and that this item had been taken with a view to sell to someone in the Selby area long before the man had brought all the contents from the 10 burglaries to the scene later in the day. Likewise, the judge suggested to the jury in his bias summing up, that Mr Ibbottson, and Mr Carr, had both identified property belonging to themselves which had been stolen during the break in at their homes less than 48 hours before police had found them concealed inside the bungalow, not forming part of the woolworth carrier bag contents...
After I was convicted by a 10/2 majority verdict, item 59 (the 24" gold coloured curb link necklet), was handed back to Mrs Athi against her signature by DC Ricjardson, as were the items concealed at the scene identified by Mr Ibbottson, and Mr Carr, despite the jury being tricked into believing and accepting that all 3 of the 10 complainants had mistakenly identified those items as belonging to them...
These matters are at the heart of my case, existing as proof that I have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. I could not have been the man who brought all the proceeds to this bungalow at 6.30pm on the evening of the 25th January contained in a woolworth carrier bag, because (a) the stolen proceeds were already there at the scene long before the arrival of the man, and (b) the occupants of the bungalow misled the court into believing that these 3 key items of jewellery belonged to themselves, rather than to 3 of the 10 complainants, to facilitate a deception to allow the jury to find me guilty of having been the burglar, when in fact I was not, and could not have been in the falsified circumstances alleged...
