As already pointed out in Part 27 of this ongoing blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below;
Misleading evidence was presented to the three judges presiding over the appeal hearing of violent rapist and convicted fraudster Andrew Malkinson.
Saturday 19th July 2003: Was the date of Andrew Malkinson’s Violent Attack & Rapes
Sunday 20th July 2003: Was the date Edward Henry claimed to the appeal judges police constables (Pc’s) Chris Baybutt & Gary Waite visited Andrew Malkinson at work
Your lordships the very next morning, purely as a result of a hunch, when the description of the attacker had been recited to them, the night before at the scene, police constable Waite and police constable Baybutt, on hearing the description of the attacker said ‘that’s Andrew Malkinson’ because about a month before they had stopped him erm, he hadn’t committed any offence, but he was seen riding pillion on the back of a young Mr Hardman’s moped
And they had stopped him, so as a result of the hunch they went to see him the following day
Immediately the day after the attack at his place of work
Statements by Edward Henry during Andrew Malkinson’s appeal hearing on 26th July 2023 here
Monday 21st July 2003: Said to be the date the VICTIM in this case gave her police witness statement
Monday 21st July 2003: Was the date Andrew Malkinson stated in 2016 (via writer Bob Woffinden) that Pc’s Baybutt & Waite visited him at work
The evidence was that at 2.00pm on the day of the attack two community beat officers, after hearing the description of the attacker, had ‘immediately’ and ‘simultaneously’ named Malkinson as the suspect.
Why would anyone, having heard of the attacker’s ‘smart’ clothes, instantly think of the generally dishevelled Malkinson?
Secondly, two days later, on Monday 21 July, the officers saw Malkinson at work.
Excerpts by Bob Woffinden’s taken from chapter 5 of his book The Nicholas cases
Friday 25th July 2003: The date the CCRC submitted to the appeal court judges that Pc’s Baybutt & Waite visited Andrew Malkinson at work
My learned friend and the respondent says that the commission has over stated this matter
In fact actually if we go to the statement of reason, eh and if I may ask you, and if I do erm ask you very briefly my lords to go to page 114, eh and eh paragraph 165
Forgive me 164, this is what the commission said
‘This is significant because the trial judge raised the question of whether the victim was mistaken about having scratched her attacker at all and told the jury that if she may have scratched her attacker then the person responsible for the attack cannot be the defendant
Dr Anderson’s mistake allowed the judge to suggest that the victim may have been mistaken in her account of scratching her attacker. This undermined an important defence point made by Mr Malkinson’s counsel at trial that the fact that Mr Malkinson was not injured or disfigured in anyway when he was seen by the police on the 25th of July, six days after the attack, meant that he could not have been the attacker’
With the greatest respect to my learned friend but also to the commission, erm the commission erm got that wrong
It was the very next day
Statements by Edward Henry during Andrew Malkinson’s appeal on 26th July 2023 at around 1:14:44 here
Who Was & Is Wrong?
It is not clear who was and is wrong in relation to the date Pc’s Chris Baybutt and Gary Waite visited Ellesmere shopping centre.
However it was reported that both Pc’s Baybutt and Waite were “recommended for a commendation” by Judge Michael Henshall, who presided over the February 2004 trial, for helping to bring violent rapist Andrew Malkinson to justice.
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 