In the bungalow proceedings, the prosecution relied upon identification evidence, and the doctrine of recent possession, to prosecute and convict me. But thier case was fundamentally flawed, because they told the jury that the man who visited the scene on the evening of the 25th January 1987, had brought the proceeds from 10 burglaries committed that same week-end to the scene at about 6.30pm that Sunday evening. But the occupiers of the bungalow had been out visiting other jewellers that same day, and had taken several pieces of jewellery with them when leaving home at midday with a view to sell it. One of the items they took with them, was item 69 (a 24" long gold necklace), which they brought back home with them, and it was placed on the kitchen worktop, from where police later recovered it...
The occupiers told police that this 24" gold curb link necklet belonged to them and that it had been purchased a couple of years previously, but they could not produce any evidence to back this claim up...
This 24" gold curb link necklet was reported stolen in a burglary which had occurred less than 48 hours previously, and later identified as being the necklet belonging to one of the 10 victims. Other property stolen during the same burglary was recovered inside a woolworths plastic carrier bag hidden beneath the mattress of a bed in one of the bedrooms at the bungalow. Oddly enough, when police listed the contents of the aforementioned carrier bag, include amongst it was item 69, the 24" gold curb link necklet that the occupiers of the bungalow admitted to being in possession of over six hours before the man visited them that same evening. The occupiers of the bungalow had retained possession of item 6 in thier possession, failed to sell it to some unknown business party who lived in the Selby area, refusing to name to police who that person was, brought the item back home to thier bungalow, and put in on the kitchen worktop, before the man spoken about arrived at the scene. Item 69 was therefore not present inside the carrier bag under the mattress in the bedroom of the bungalow, yet police include it as part of its contents, so that they could make out a case for all the jewellry inside the bag to have been stolen during the course of burglaries that had taken place within the last 48 hours, and that the man who visited the bungalow at 6.30pm that Sunday evening had been the burglar who had committed all these 10 offences of burglary, which had been carried out by the same person, in the same general areas of Sheffield and Derbyshire less than 48 hours beforehand, despite the evidence that the occupiers of the bungalow being in possession of it before the man arrived at the scene. Additionally, the occupiers wife had told police that item 69 belonged to her husband to prevent them both being charged with the burglaries by a reliance upon the doctrine of recent possession - this was why police transferred the location of item 69 as being present inside the carrier bag under the bed, rather than it having been in the possession of the occupiers of the bungalow all day long before the man came to visit them later on that evening...
I am convicted of something which I could not possibly have done or been responsible for doing, simply because the prosecution convinced the jury that I was the man who visited the bungalow that night, and that by a reliance upon the doctrine of recent possession I must have been the burglar, who brought all the contents of the carrier bag found under the bed, to the scene that evening, including item 69, but this was false and could not possibly have been true...
The system which prosecuted and convicted me of being the burglar is a corrupt one, run by the real criminals...
