The Case Of Mike Tesko

[mike tesko]

They can't tell me how many pages this imaginary full judgement consisted of, nor can they tell me the date it was supposedly made. They can't tell me how they supposedly sent a copy of it to me, because it did not exist at any stage. The only judgement ever in existence, is the unedited 42 page version, dated the 11th February, 1994, via courtesy of Graysons solicitors...

[mike tesko]

They can't tell me how many pages this imaginary full judgement consisted of, nor can they tell me the date it was supposedly made. They can't tell me how they supposedly sent a copy of it to me, because it did not exist at any stage. The only judgement ever in existence, is the unedited 42 page version, dated the 11th February, 1994, via courtesy of Graysons solicitors...

The Criminal Justice System is fraught with corruption and dishonesty...

[mike tesko]

The more I think about it, not only was my trial fixed, but the appeal hearing was also fixed...

[mike tesko]

I was convicted of the 10 break ins, by a reliance upon 'THE DOCTRINE OF RECENT POSSESSION'...

[mike tesko]

I was convicted of the 10 break ins, by a reliance upon 'THE DOCTRINE OFRECENT POSSESSION'...

Forsaking the issue of mis- identification for one moment, including use of fabricated evidence in the form of doctored witness statements, and false entries made in dodgy pocket entries, and a multitude of breeches of their own police regulations, the committing of acts of perjery and forgery by police officers at my trial, and in the case of DC Richardson, at my appeal  hearing, I do not believe that the prosecution proved a case for the doctrine of recent possession to apply in this case...

This was because of the following material facts, adduced at (a) committal proceedings held at Barnsley Magistrates court, (b) testimony given by police officers, during my trial held at Sheffield crown court, (c) Police Interviews of Ds Christopher Alan Higham, and DC Richardson, and (c) testimony of DC Richardson during the appeal hearing, supported by the contents of (d) the 42 page, unedited court of appeal judgement, dated, 11th February, 1994...

[mike tesko]

It was allegged that all the property subject of these 10 break ins had all been brought to the home of Douglas McHale, a known dishonest market trader who specialised in second hand jewellery, with the intention of trading it for ready cash. But the evidence suggests very strongly that infact the proceeds from these 10 break ins, was already at Mchales home since long before the arrival of the man at the bungalow, at just after half past six, on Sunday the 25th January 1987, and if that proved to be the case, then of course, the man who came along to the bungalow later, could not have been the burglar...

[mike tesko]

Primarily, item 59, a 24" gold curb link necklett belonging to one of the 10 complainants, was already in the possession of Douglas McHale and Leslie Hawkes on the morning of Sunday the 25th January 1987, 7 hours or more before the arrival of the man at their bungalow at just after 6.30pm. McHale and Hawkes had taken this 24" gold curb link necklett to try and sell it to acquaintances of Thiers in Selby earlier in the day, without success. According to Hawkes, this item (59) belonged to her partner, Douglas Mchale, who had purchased it two years earlier. upon arriving hone later that evening, item 59 had not been replaced into the Woolworth plastic carrier bag in their possession, but had been placed on the kitchen worktop nr the microwave...

[mike tesko]

Primarily, item 59, a 24" gold curb link necklett belonging to one of the 10 complainants, was already in the possession of Douglas McHale and Leslie Hawkes on the morning of Sunday the 25th January 1987, 7 hours or more before the arrival of the man at their bungalow at just after 6.30pm. McHale and Hawkes had taken this 24" gold curb link necklett to try and sell it to acquaintances of Thiers in Selby earlier in the day, without success. According to Hawkes, this item (59) belonged to her partner, Douglas Mchale, who had purchased it two years earlier. upon arriving hone later that evening, item 59 had not been replaced into the Woolworth plastic carrier bag in their possession, but had been placed on the kitchen worktop nr the microwave...

Another item, which had been stolen during one of the break ins, item 69, which had been secreted behind central heating pipes in a hallway cupboard, belonged to a Mr Ibbotson. Other property stolen during the course of that same break in, were found amongst the contents of the Woolworth carrier bag from under a mattress in the bedroom...

Therefore, property which had been stolen less than 48 hours beforehand, was in McHale's and Hawked possession, long enough for them to separate some of the stolen property from the other, and (a) conceal it behind heating pipes in one of their cupboards, and (b) take at least one other item with them to Selby that morning to try and sell it to someone who they refused to identify to the police. There is every reason to believe that they took other items stolen during the other 8 break ins with them that morning with a view to them selling it all to the unnamed buyer who lived in the Selby area. For all we know, McHale and Hawkes could have taken the Woolworth carrier bag full of the proceeds from all 10 of these break ins when they went out intent on realizing themselves some cash through the sale of the stolen property in their possession (long before the man arrived on the scene later that evening). If this is what did happen, how can the man in question, whoever he was, be convicted of the 10 burglaries on the basis that later on that evening (Sunday, 25th January 1987) he had been in possession of the stolen property, less than 48 hours after it had been stolen, by a reliance upon the 'doctrine of recent possession'?

Firstly, it had not been proved to a satisfactory standard, that the property which the man was allegedly seen handling through a tiny gap in a venetion blind, was indeed the very same property later recovered from under the mattress in one of the rear bedrooms. Secondly, the bag seen by the officer who was peering through the gap in the venetion blind at the lounge window, had, he said, been a cloth bank bag, not a Woolworth carrier bag. Thirdly, after the recovery of the Woolworth carrier bag in another part of the house which contained items of stolen property from all 10 break ins, at no stage did the officer who had allegedly been peering through the gap in the venetion blind ever view the contents of the Woolworth carrier bag with a view of saying that it was the same jewellery he had seen being tipped out onto the lounge carpet from the cloth bank bag?

[mike tesko]

Another item, which had been stolen during one of the break ins, item 69, which had been secreted behind central heating pipes in a hallway cupboard, belonged to a Mr Ibbotson. Other property stolen during the course of that same break in, were found amongst the contents of the Woolworth carrier bag from under a mattress in the bedroom...

Therefore, property which had been stolen less than 48 hours beforehand, was in McHale's and Hawked possession, long enough for them to separate some of the stolen property from the other, and (a) conceal it behind heating pipes in one of their cupboards, and (b) take at least one other item with them to Selby that morning to try and sell it to someone who they refused to identify to the police. There is every reason to believe that they took other items stolen during the other 8 break ins with them that morning with a view to them selling it all to the unnamed buyer who lived in the Selby area. For all we know, McHale and Hawkes could have taken the Woolworth carrier bag full of the proceeds from all 10 of these break ins when they went out intent on realizing themselves some cash through the sale of the stolen property in their possession (long before the man arrived on the scene later that evening). If this is what did happen, how can the man in question, whoever he was, be convicted of the 10 burglaries on the basis that later on that evening (Sunday, 25th January 1987) he had been in possession of the stolen property, less than 48 hours after it had been stolen, by a reliance upon the 'doctrine of recent possession'?

Firstly, it had not been proved to a satisfactory standard, that the property which the man was allegedly seen handling through a tiny gap in a venetion blind, was indeed the very same property later recovered from under the mattress in one of the rear bedrooms. Secondly, the bag seen by the officer who was peering through the gap in the venetion blind at the lounge window, had, he said, been a cloth bank bag, not a Woolworth carrier bag. Thirdly, after the recovery of the Woolworth carrier bag in another part of the house which contained items of stolen property from all 10 break ins, at no stage did the officer who had allegedly been peering through the gap in the venetion blind ever view the contents of the Woolworth carrier bag with a view of saying that it was the same jewellery he had seen being tipped out onto the lounge carpet from the cloth bank bag?

What seems on the face of it is that both type of bag and its respective contents were in all probability different bags and contents, which make the convictions even more unsafe...

[mike tesko]

There remains the strong possibility, that the man who arrived at the bungalow, 2 Ringstone Grove, in Brierley, nr Barnsley, South Yorkshire, on that particular evening, was a buyer, rather than a seller, and that the man who escaped through the roof and fled the scene had also like Douglas McHale been a dishonest market trader who dealt in second hand jewellery. The man who fled, took with him the goods McHale and Hawkes intended to sell him...

This is what I believe happened, the Woolworths carrier bag later found under the mattress in the bedroom had nothing whatsoever to do with that man...

[mike tesko]

It also came to light during the cross examination of PC Lowe, and Leslie Hawkes during my trial, that what supposedly was observed through the gap in the Venetian blind, simply could not have happened because with the sequence of events described by Hawkes, did not correspond with the alleged observations made by PC Lowe...

[mike tesko]

It also came to light during the cross examination of PC Lowe, and Leslie Hawkes during my trial, that what supposedly was observed through the gap in the Venetian blind, simply could not have happened because with the sequence of events described by Hawkes, did not correspond with the alleged observations made by PC Lowe...

According to Hawkes testimony during the trial, all the presentation of jewellery by George to Douglas had alteady been completed before she went into the lounge after taking the dogs for a walk. She said, that upon returning into the bungalow, how she had popped her head around the lounge door to ask Douglas and George if they wanted a cup of tea? At this stage all the jewellery had already been separated into its different categories of Carat, 9ct, 18ct and 22ct gold, and she told how Douglas had given her a piece of foolscap paper with some weights on to take away with her into the kitchen to work out some prices for...

When the police entered the premisrs and searchef it later, they found this puece of paper in the kitchen, it contained weights, but not any prices. This note was not desclosed to the defense at trial, despite a request from leading counsel Shuan Spencer, QC, requesting that it should be made available because there may well be something of substance contained in it that would be helpful to the defense case. Regretably, that vital piece of evidence was not made available,  and therefore, its contents could not be utilized by the defence. But in any event, as pointwd out to the jury in his summing up address, he invited the jury to consider the evidence given by PC Lowe, who had testified about peering into the the lounge through a small gap in the venetion blind, and seeing the two men, one who had claimed was the defendant (me), tipping out the contents of a cloth bank bag, and the other man, Douglas Mchale weighing the jewellry on a set of weighing scales. The judge reminded the jury that based on Leslie Hawkes account, the weighing had already taken place before she had returned to the bungalow after she had walked the dogs, and it would be unlikely that PC Lowe could have seen, what he claimed he saw of the man tipping out the contents of the cloth bank bag onto the lounge floor...

[mike tesko]

Based on the sworn testimony of PC Lowe and Leslie Hawkes, the case should have been removed from the juries province by the trial judge, or at the very least, the judge should have given a direction to the jury to totally diregard the evidence of PC Lowe because it was a false account designed to implicate the defendant to the woolworth carrier bag and its contents before the escape of the man via the roof, and the recovery of the stolen items inside a woolworths carrier bag from under a mattress in one of the bedrooms...

[mike tesko]

It was an act of extreme bias on the part of the trial judge to inform the jury  that PC Lowes account must be a mistaken one, because the weighing of jewellery had taken place by the time Leslie Hawes  had returned to the bungalow, and she had been handed the piece of foolscap paper with various categories of gold written upon it. PC Lowes account was not a mistaken one, it was a dishonest account. He invented a false claim of identification, and he deliberately associated that false identification evidence to the jewrllery later recovered within a woolworth carrier bag found in a different part of the premises...

[mike tesko]

Allegged sightings of the man at the scene of this incident were to put it bluntly, imaginary. All sightings introduced to try and link stolen property which had been found in various locations inside the bungalow, as having been brought there by the man, and concealed in the bedroom, by the man...