On Friday 16th February 2024 Ana Justice tweeted the following;
Ana Justice has been obtaining copies of trial transcripts, in relation to sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell from the Scottish courts, and subsequently publishing them online.
Tap on the button below for links to trial transcripts;
Scott C Forbes has also been making false allegations, accusing Ana Justice of “doctoring official court documents”;
Motivations For Stalking
According to Stalkers And Their Victims (here) research byPaul E. Mullen, Michele Pathé and Rosemary Purcell say that the “resentful” stalkers stalking “is designed to inflict fear and distress”.
According to the public prosecution services for Northern Ireland website here, they state;
There are many reasons why a person may stalk another and there is no such thing as a ‘typical’ stalking perpetrator.
The ‘Stalking Risk Profile’ – developed by Mullan et al of Melbourne University – assists investigators and prosecutors in understanding stalking behaviour and risk. This profile divides stalkers into five types and considers the context in which the stalking arises and the stalker’s motivation for contacting the victim:
The Rejected Stalker – Rejected stalking arises in the context of the breakdown of a close relationship. Victims are usually former sexual intimates; however, family members, close friends, or others with a very close relationship to the stalker can also become targets of Rejected stalking
The Resentful stalker – Resentful stalking arises when the stalker feels as though they have been mistreated or that they are the victim of some form of injustice or humiliation. Victims are strangers or acquaintances who are seen to have mistreated the stalker.
The Intimacy Seeking stalker – Intimacy seeking stalking arises out of a context of loneliness and a lack of a close confidante. Victims are usually strangers or acquaintances who become the target of the stalker’s desire for a relationship. Frequently Intimacy Seeking stalkers’ behaviour involves delusional beliefs about the victim, such as the belief that they are already in a relationship, even though none exists.
The Incompetent Suitor – The Incompetent suitor stalks in the context of loneliness or lust and targets strangers or acquaintances. Unlike the Intimacy Seeker, however, their initial motivation is not to establish a loving relationship, but to get a date or a short term sexual relationship. Incompetent Suitors usually stalk for brief periods, but when they do persist, their behaviour is usually maintained by the fact that they are blind or indifferent to the distress of the victim.
The Predatory Stalker – Predatory stalking arises in the context of deviant sexual practices and interests. Perpetrators are usually male and victims are usually female strangers in whom the stalker develops a sexual interest. The stalking behaviour is usually initiated as a way of obtaining sexual gratification (e.g., voyeurism targeting a single victim over time), but can also be used as a way of obtaining information about the victim as a precursor to a sexual assault, the most dangerous leading to serious attack.
Excerpts from the Northern Ireland Public Prosecution Services website here
Warwick Tatford gave his evidence to the fatally flawed and biased post office inquiry on 15th of November 2023.
During the inquiry, at around 33:34 (see link at foot of blog), lead counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer asked Warwick Tatford about the ARQ (Audit Record Query) data relating to Seema Misra and her former West Byfleet branch.
At the foot of this blog are copies of extracts from the post office horizon IT inquiry transcripts (Originals here) and some copies of exhibits relating to the ARQ data
Misappropriation Of Lottery Monies
Seema Misra falsely accused 3 former staff members of stealing around £89k-£90k cash.
Their names were Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwallia and Nadia Badiwalia.
Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwalia and Nadia Badiwalia had left the shop and post office by February 2006, therefore they could not have been responsible for any thefts which followed thereafter.
Shakia
Warwick Tatford addressed some details relating to Seema Misra’s false allegations related to Shakia Suksener (outside of the jury). He stated “detailed defence statement that was served “on the 21st January 2010 “..there are references to the thieves that Mrs Misra thought she had found. Paragraph (c) says in fact that she was satisfied that Shakia Suksener was not accountable, not a theft, which does not tie in with the earlier letter where her identity is set out as a thief, but the incident with Javed Badiwalia is set out and also Nadia “Bakliwalia” it is spelt, I think that is an obvious typing error, and various other details are set out in these paragraphs ending in (f) setting out the general nature of the defence” (p.18 here)
In August 2006 a media article here highlighted the fact Seema Misra had said she had problems with staff “leaving”.
She admitted to the jury (and Warwick Tatford) that by the end of 2006 she “had puta stop to the thefts by employees” (p.90 & 91 here), therefore any subsequent thefts were down to her (and her husband Davinder Misra).
The October 2006 £23,374.50 Lottery Debt
In October 2006, some 8 months after Nadia and Javed Bakiwalla had left, Seema Misra was found to have misappropriated £23,374.50 relating to lottery and scratch card monies belonging to the post office.
She failed to transfer £23,374.50 cash from her (and her husbands) shop account into the post office’s account.
The post office agreed to allow this figure to be settled centrally on 21st November 2006 and for the debt to be paid back via monthly instalments from her salary (p.10 here & p.71 here).
The first 4 months payments, which she paid from January to April 2007 were £843, £842, £654.47 and £2,000, then in May 2007 it was agreed she would pay back the outstanding £19,034.03 in “nine instalments of £2,000” (P.11 here).
Misappropriation Continues
A post office letter dated 7th May 2007 (indicating Seema Misra’s misappropriation was continuing), read “We have previously written to you regarding debt that has been settled centrally and is to be deducted from your remuneration. Further debt has been added to this amount and so it has now become necessary to revise your original repayments. Your future repayments will be as follows commencing April 07 – one instalment of £2,000 followed by a further eight instalments of £2,000 per month, then a one off instalment of £1,034.03 in February 2008” (p.53 here)
Seema Misra was suspended on 14th January 2008 following a routine audit which found a shortfall of £74,609.84, she was also still owing the post office £3,034.03 for her previous misappropriated monies.
In a handwritten note passed to auditor Keith Noverre, on the day she was suspended, Seema Misra stated in part, “Lottery money was being taken from shop but never entered on horizon. Even on the shop side was low as well” (p.46 here)
Seema’s Confession
Keith Hadrill asked Seema during her evidence in chief, “So the months go by. The Post Office Horizon system is telling you that you should have X amount of cash or stock. Were they balancing, marrying up” to which she admitted she “didn’t do any checks“.
Keith Hadrill appeared shocked by her admission when he replied with “sorry?” to which Seema Misra stated “I didn’t do any checks to check the actual cash and all that. All I was doing print out a snapshot and entering into the system” (p.72 & 73 here).
Before the prosecution and defence gave their closing arguments to the jury, the jury asked the court 5 questions, 3 of which related to the misappropriation of the £23,374.50 lottery monies and Seema’s husband Davinder Misra.
Their first question was “when you buy a ticket for the Lottery is it on the till in the shop and how is it related to the Horizon system?” The judgetold them “The evidence is that Lottery tickets or scratch cards, whatever it is, are bought in the shop on a shop till. There is a printout at the end of the day showing how many were sold and that is transferred over to the post office” (p.15 here).
Their second question was “Has Mrs Misra’s husband the authority by the Post Office to unlock the Horizon system and get into the post office section?” The judge’s response was “The evidence is that the sub-postmaster or mistress is responsible for the post office. They train and employ their staff and staff have access to the Horizon system to undertake their duties.
The jury also asked “Was Mr Misra in charge of the Lottery till as well as Mrs Misra?” The judge told them “The answer to that is all shop employees, according to the evidence, operated the Lottery till including Mr Misra who was of course there on 14th January” (p.15 & 16 here).
Was Davinder Misra “caught red handed” stealing the post office’ lottery monies by Nadia and/or Javed Badiwalia in, or before February 2006, and was this the reason why Davinder chose to harass Javed and spread malicious rumours about Javed allegedly stealing “£1,000”/“£2,000”, and was this the reason why he chose to contact Surrey police and report Nadia for allegedly being “an illegal immigrant” in April 2006?
Or was it Seema Misra who caught her husband stealing and chose to side with him out of loyalty?
Also why would the Misra’s choose to employ an alleged “illegal immigrant”?
Caught Red Handed
During trial, when referring to police crime reports, Jonathan Longman stated “that the suspect on this crime report was Mr Kumar Davinder Misra” (p.18 here).
Seema Misra did not report any alleged staff thefts to either the post office or the police, that is until she was ‘caught red handed’ when the auditors turned up in January 2008.
Questions For Warwick Tatford
“The date range in the theft charge allegation” (15 November 2006 and January 2008) tallies with around the date Seema Misra was found to have “misappropriated” the £23,374.50 lottery and scratch card monies.
Seema Misra began trading at the end of June/early July 2005 with “cash, stocks and vouchers” totalling £65,426.68, within months there were shortfalls.
A post office letter dated 19th December 2005 stated in part “Outstanding debt to be deducted from remuneration we now intend to authorise deduction from the remuneration of £3,184.53 (p.51 & 52 here).
What did Warwick Tatford discover with regards Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwallia and Nadia Badiwalia in relation to the dates they stopped working for the Misra’s?
What did Warwick Tatford discover following the serving of Seema Misra’s defence statements?
Why did Warwick Tatford choose to not address any of the above during his evidence to the inquiry?
Jason Beer: Can we look at that, please. It’s POL00045010. This accompanied your brief and your instructions. Are these the charges in respect of which Mrs Misra had been committed by the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: If we pan out a little bit, we see that Charge 1 was a theft allegation of stealing £74,000-odd and the remaining four are false accounting charges –
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: As you’ve said. So one theft, four false accounting. The date range in the theft allegation is 15 November 2006 and 14 January 2008?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You say in your witness statement – I’m so sorry. I wonder whether we can turn to POL00051092. We can see an email from you to Jarnail Singh on 10 March, saying: “Please find indictment attached for Misra, which needs to be lodged today.” I think we’ve seen in your instructions that the deadline for you settling the indictment was, indeed, 10 March. Then if we can look, please, at POL00051149, we can see an indictment. You say in your witness statement that you do not believe that this is a copy of the indictment that you settled and, instead, it was a copy included in your papers as a draft indictment.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I think that’s right, yes.
Jason Beer: Just dealing with those two things separately, why it might not be a copy of the indictment that you settled: plainly it wasn’t the one enclosed with the email because we can see a T-number written in hand on the top right-hand side. That wouldn’t have been included in the attachment to your email, would it?
Warwick Tatford: No
Jason Beer: If we look at page 3, please, at the foot of the page, we can see it’s dated 16 March 2009, again in hand, which is after your email of 10 March, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Then if we look at the very foot of the page, we can see that there’s a character string suggesting that this document may have come from a drive or may have been saved in a drive relating to Jarnail Singh; can you see that?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I do
Jason Beer: So that, I think, establishes the first part of the proposition that it’s not the one that was attached to your email. But you tell us as well, that you think this was a copy included in your papers as a draft indictment. That’s unlikely, isn’t it, given these features, the three features?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, that’s right, looking at the dates. I said that, I think, because there often would be a draft indictment.
Jason Beer: Well, the instructions that you received set out the enclosures and draft indictment isn’t one of them?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, well, I’ve missed that. That’s me thinking – making a mistake because of other cases, then.
Jason Beer: I just want to look at the substance then, whether this looks to be the indictment that you settled, albeit dates and signatures have been added after you settled it. Can we just look at page 4, please, which is the next page, and scroll down, and scroll down. Is that the kind of back sheet that you would prepare when you were settling an indictment?
Warwick Tatford: No, I wouldn’t do a back sheet. If I sent an indictment by email, I would simply send it as an attachment to the email, I think. A back sheet – in this – around this time, we were still not using computers anywhere near as much as the barristers use them now but I would only send – attach a back sheet to a written piece of work, which was sent in the DX.
Jason Beer: : If we scroll up, please, we can see this has got a “Received” stamp on it of 11 March 2009, the day after you settled it. Do you think you sent one out in the post or by DX too?
Warwick Tatford: No, I don’t think so. I think I simply sent one out by email. The reason – the reason I don’t think this is the indictment I drafted is simply because of the formatting. I don’t think I’d have underlined names in quite the way it is. I may be in error about this because I’ve noticed my formatting generally is very different from now I format matters now. Looking at the dates, this might well be the indictment I drafted. I thought that it wasn’t because of the way it’s formatted but I’m not sure, I’m afraid. I don’t think there’s any significant difference from the indictment I drafted and the original draft.
Jason Beer: When you say the indictment that you settled and the original draft, what are you referring to as the original draft?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, the charges, I think, in this case, as there wasn’t a draft indictment, it would be the charges. So I used the charges, I compared them against the evidence and drafted the indictment. Maybe – I’m so sorry – sorry.
Jason Beer: In fact, if we look back at page 1 of the indictment, we can see there are some material changes. The theft count, you can see the period of the alleged theft is expanded in terms of its start date – can you see that
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: And this remained so, including up to the point of arraignment and at trial, 29 June 2005. Then if we look at the accounts, remembering previously there were four counts of false accounting, if we just scroll through this document – and keep going. We can see there are seven counts in total, six counts of false accounting. So it’s expanded from four to six. You think that was your work, the –
Warwick Tatford: Oh, yes, certainly the – focusing on the date is helpful because I’d have begun it with the beginning of Mrs Misra’s time at the West Byfleet office. The more I look at this, it may be I was misled by the way it was formatted. This may well be the indictment I drafted. I’m sorry if I made a mistake about that.
Jason Beer: That’s all right. Just going back to Count 1, then, and the theft, I think you just said that you expanded the period of coverage from the date that Mrs Misra started in the Post Office, at West Byfleet, that being 29 June 2005.
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: At the point of settling the indictment, had you got anything such as ARQ data?
Warwick Tatford: No Jason Beer: Did you subsequently receive ARQ data?
Warwick Tatford: Well, it was certainly – I think I did, I must have done. The defence was served it, I would have had it served at the same time. I know I advised that it be – that it be served on a disk, I think; they wished to print it out. I’m trying to remember whether I had a full copy myself but I would have thought I did, but possibly just on a CD-ROM.
Jason Beer: Thank you. If we just look at some other material that may help you
Warwick Tatford: Of course
Jason Beer: FUJ00122707. This is Penny Thomas, an employee of Fujitsu, her witness statement for the purposes of the Seema Misra prosecution, dated 4 February 2010. You can see what she says in the opening paragraph, if we just scroll down a little bit, to remind you of who she was. If we then turn to page 5, please, in that first substantive paragraph, she produces a copy of some ARQs, and she gives the number as her exhibit PT1, and produces a CD as her exhibit PT2.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I see
Jason Beer: Then, if we go to page 7, please. This is a document that she attaches to her witness statement, which appears to give the date range of the ARQ data that she was exhibiting. Can you see the date range in the right-hand column three boxes down –
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: 1 December 2006 until 31 December 2007. That period is a limited period covering only the false accounting charges, rather than the whole of the theft period, which ran from when Mrs Misra took over West Byfleet on 29 June 2005 to 14 January 2008. Do you know why that was, why the ARQ data was obtained for a different period of time than the allegations in Count 1?
Warwick Tatford: The – well, I think this ties in with the – what I set out in my abuse of process argument because the Post Office told me that it was – because of their contractual relations with Fujitsu, they wouldn’t be able to have ARQ data to cover the full indictment period and I’ve set out the reasons what – as to what I was told about that in my abuse of process argument. I acknowledge straightaway that the Court of Appeal in Hamilton have said that the full material must be served but I’ve set out the explanation as to why a shorter period was chosen. It is to do with the cost and the contractual arrangements but, also, a shorter period was chosen so that there could be a focus on a time when the data may not be affected by the thefts that Mrs Misra said that she’d dealt with.
Jason Beer: So that’s the explanation, cutting through matters, that you put when cross-examining the defence expert, Professor McLachlan?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You said – I’m not going to turn it up for the moment – the rationale behind why you were given that 13-month period, ie December ‘06 to the end of December ‘07, is because it’s not tainted by any suggestion of theft, ie suggestion of theft made by Mrs Misra. It’s clean data to look at for computer error.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, not tainted by theft by employees of Mrs Misra, not Mrs Misra herself. It’s to – clean data to focus on whether any patterns could be seen that might be suggestive of Horizon problems. It was really to focus on that – the three possibilities, that possibility that was raised by her defence at the trial.
Jason Beer: Professor McLachlan replied “But I requested the data for the entire period”, and you said: “I fully accept that but, if one requested and received every piece of paper for West Byfleet, we would probably fill this room.” Is that your understanding of why the data was not requested for the entirety of the period of the theft count, ie cost and volume?
Warwick Tatford: Cost, volume, those were the main reasons, I’m afraid. It was also – there was the additional consideration of an untainted period but I – the dominant factors were cost – the dominant factor was cost and the contractual relationship with Fujitsu, I think.
Jason Beer: I think you candidly accept in you witness statement that, on reflection, this was the wrong approach?
Warwick Tatford: Yes. Very much so. And – well, I set out reasons for that. I agree. I accept that. Yes.
Jason Beer: Would I summarise them correctly as follows: the Crown chose to charge an ongoing theft over a long period of time?
Warwick Tatford: Yes.
Jason Beer: Once the defence raised the reliability of Horizon, disclosing the Horizon data for the whole of the indictment period was not a matter of disclosing unused material; it was also the primary evidence upon which the Crown relied in order to prove that the property belonging to another had been appropriated by the defendant?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, that’s right, it was served as evidence.
Jason Beer: In other words, that data was necessary to prove the elements of the offence of theft?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I would agree with that.
Jason Beer: Therefore, Mrs Misra was entitled to receive the entirety of the data for that period as served evidence, so that her expert could analyse it and see whether the Crown had indeed proved its case?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I certainly would agree with that now. I’ve explained the reasoning. I think the reasoning now was wrong, as exposed by the Court of Appeal. But, actually, the way that you’ve exposed it shows that it’s wrong simply in its basic logic.
Jason Beer: Did you consider that the theft and false accounting charges were essentially alleging the same criminal conduct?
Warwick Tatford: No. I was aware of the case of Eden, which I referred to in my abuse of process argument, and the Crown has to consider very carefully whether to charge both types of offending. In this case, it was fully justified because it allowed Mrs Misra to plead guilty to what she accepted but also allowed the Crown, if it had the evidence to do so, to pursue the clearly more serious allegation of theft.
Warwick Tatford:
Jason Beer: So these were separate offences, reflective of two different types of alleged criminal conduct
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: The first being a theft charge relating to the alleged stealing of the money, the second being a false accounting charge or a series of false accounting charges relating to the alleged covering up of the theft?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, the false accounting was the covering up but Mrs Misra, in her interview, suggested she was covering up for thefts of others, so there was a different motive for that offence, which made it a less serious offence. If she was only convicted of that offence alone and found not guilty of the theft, she’d get a very different sentence. That’s why I thought it very appropriate to have the two different kinds of offending, albeit they’re linked but the motivations were different.
Copy of Exhibit FUJ00122707
Tap on the below to hear more of Warwick Tatford’s evidence or click here to read the transcripts;
Warwick Tatford gave his evidence to the fatally flawed and biased post office inquiry on 15th of November 2023.
During the inquiry, at around 33:34 (see link at foot of blog), lead counsel to the inquiry Jason Beer asked Warwick Tatford about the ARQ (Audit Record Query) data relating to Seema Misra and her former West Byfleet branch.
At the foot of this blog are copies of extracts from the post office horizon IT inquiry transcripts (Originals here) and some copies of exhibits relating to the ARQ data
Misappropriation Of Lottery Monies
Seema Misra falsely accused 3 former staff members of stealing around £89k-£90k cash.
Their names were Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwallia and Nadia Badiwalia.
Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwalia and Nadia Badiwalia had left the shop and post office by February 2006, therefore they could not have been responsible for any thefts which followed thereafter.
Shakia
Warwick Tatford addressed some details relating to Seema Misra’s false allegations related to Shakia Suksener (outside of the jury). He stated “detailed defence statement that was served “on the 21st January 2010 “..there are references to the thieves that Mrs Misra thought she had found. Paragraph (c) says in fact that she was satisfied that Shakia Suksener was not accountable, not a theft, which does not tie in with the earlier letter where her identity is set out as a thief, but the incident with Javed Badiwalia is set out and also Nadia “Bakliwalia” it is spelt, I think that is an obvious typing error, and various other details are set out in these paragraphs ending in (f) setting out the general nature of the defence” (p.18 here)
In August 2006 a media article here highlighted the fact Seema Misra had said she had problems with staff “leaving”.
Seema Misra admitted to the jury (and Warwick Tatford) that by the end of 2006 she “had puta stop to the thefts by employees” (p.90 & 91 here), therefore any subsequent thefts were down to her (and her husband Davinder Misra).
The October 2006 £23,374.50 Lottery Debt
In October 2006 (some 8 months after Nadia and Javed Bakiwalla had left) Seema Misra was found to have misappropriated £23,374.50 relating to lottery and scratch card monies belonging to the post office.
She failed to transfer £23,374.50 cash from her (and her husbands) shop account into the post office’s account.
The post office agreed to allow this figure to be settled centrally on 21st November 2006 and for the debt to be paid back via monthly instalments from her salary (p.10 here & p.71 here).
The first 4 months payments, which she paid from January to April 2007 were £843, £842, £654.47 and £2,000, then in May 2007 it was agreed she would pay back the outstanding £19,034.03 in “nine instalments of £2,000” (P.11 here).
Misappropriation Continues
A post office letter dated 7th May 2007 (indicating Seema Misra’s misappropriation was continuing), read “We have previously written to you regarding debt that has been settled centrally and is to be deducted from your remuneration. Further debt has been added to this amount and so it has now become necessary to revise your original repayments. Your future repayments will be as follows commencing April 07 – one instalment of £2,000 followed by a further eight instalments of £2,000 per month, then a one off instalment of £1,034.03 in February 2008” (p.53 here)
Seema Misra was suspended on 14th January 2008 still owing the post office £3,034.03for her misappropriated monies.
In a handwritten note passed to Keith Noverre, on the day she was suspended from the post office, Seema Misra stated in part, “Lottery money was being taken from shop but never entered on horizon. Even on the shop side was low as well” (p.46 here)
Seema’s Confession
Keith Hadrill asked Seema during her evidence in chief, “So the months go by. The Post Office Horizon system is telling you that you should have X amount of cash or stock. Were they balancing, marrying up” to which she admitted she “didn’t do any checks“.
Keith Hadrill appeared shocked by her admission when he replied with “sorry?” to which Seema Misra stated “I didn’t do any checks to check the actual cash and all that. All I was doing print out a snapshot and entering into the system” (p.72 & 73 here).
Before the prosecution and defence gave their closing arguments to the jury, the jury asked the court 5 questions, 3 of which related to the misappropriation of the £23,374.50 lottery monies and Seema’s husband Davinder Misra.
Their first question was “when you buy a ticket for the Lottery is it on the till in the shop and how is it related to the Horizon system?” The judgetold them “The evidence is that Lottery tickets or scratch cards, whatever it is, are bought in the shop on a shop till. There is a printout at the end of the day showing how many were sold and that is transferred over to the post office” (p.15 here).
Their second question was “Has Mrs Misra’s husband the authority by the Post Office to unlock the Horizon system and get into the post office section?” The judge responded to this with “The evidence is that the sub-postmaster or mistress is responsible for the post office. They train and employ their staff and staff have access to the Horizon system to undertake their duties.
The jury also asked “Was Mr Misra in charge of the Lottery till as well as Mrs Misra?” The judge stated “The answer to that is all shop employees, according to the evidence, operated the Lottery till including Mr Misra who was of course there on 14th January” (p.15 & 16 here).
Was Davinder Misra “caught red handed” stealing the post office’ lottery monies by Nadia and/or Javed Badiwalia in, or before February 2006, and was this the reason why Davinder chose to harass Javed and spread malicious rumours about Javed allegedly stealing “£1,000”/“£2,000”, and was this the reason why he chose to contact Surrey police and report Nadia for allegedly being “an illegal immigrant” in April 2006?
Also why would the Misra’s choose to employ an alleged “illegal immigrant”?
Caught Red Handed
During trial, when referring to police crime reports, Jonathan Longman stated “that the suspect on this crime report was Mr Kumar Davinder Misra” (p.18 here).
Seema Misra did not report any alleged staff thefts to either the post office or the police, that is until she was caught red handed when the auditors turned up in January 2008.
Or was it Seema Misra who caught her husband stealing and chose to side with him out of loyalty?
Questions For Warwick Tatford
“The date range in the theft charge allegation” (15 November 2006 and January 2008) tallies with around the date Seema Misra was found to have “misappropriated” the £23,374.50 lottery and scratch card monies.
Seema Misra began trading at the end of June/early July 2005 with “cash, stocks and vouchers” totalling £65,426.68, within months there were shortfalls.
A post office letter dated 19th December 2005 stated in part “Outstanding debt to be deducted from remuneration we now intend to authorise deduction from the remuneration of £3,184.53 (p.51 & 52 here).
What did Warwick Tatford discover with regards Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwallia and Nadia Badiwalia in relation to the dates they stopped working for the Misra’s?
What did Warwick Tatford discover following the serving of Seema Misra’s defence statements?
Why did Warwick Tatford choose to not address any of the above during his evidence to the inquiry?
Jason Beer: Can we look at that, please. It’s POL00045010. This accompanied your brief and your instructions. Are these the charges in respect of which Mrs Misra had been committed by the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: If we pan out a little bit, we see that Charge 1 was a theft allegation of stealing £74,000-odd and the remaining four are false accounting charges –
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: As you’ve said. So one theft, four false accounting. The date range in the theft allegation is 15 November 2006 and 14 January 2008?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You say in your witness statement – I’m so sorry. I wonder whether we can turn to POL00051092. We can see an email from you to Jarnail Singh on 10 March, saying: “Please find indictment attached for Misra, which needs to be lodged today.” I think we’ve seen in your instructions that the deadline for you settling the indictment was, indeed, 10 March. Then if we can look, please, at POL00051149, we can see an indictment. You say in your witness statement that you do not believe that this is a copy of the indictment that you settled and, instead, it was a copy included in your papers as a draft indictment.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I think that’s right, yes.
Jason Beer: Just dealing with those two things separately, why it might not be a copy of the indictment that you settled: plainly it wasn’t the one enclosed with the email because we can see a T-number written in hand on the top right-hand side. That wouldn’t have been included in the attachment to your email, would it?
Warwick Tatford: No
Jason Beer: If we look at page 3, please, at the foot of the page, we can see it’s dated 16 March 2009, again in hand, which is after your email of 10 March, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Then if we look at the very foot of the page, we can see that there’s a character string suggesting that this document may have come from a drive or may have been saved in a drive relating to Jarnail Singh; can you see that?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I do
Jason Beer: So that, I think, establishes the first part of the proposition that it’s not the one that was attached to your email. But you tell us as well, that you think this was a copy included in your papers as a draft indictment. That’s unlikely, isn’t it, given these features, the three features?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, that’s right, looking at the dates. I said that, I think, because there often would be a draft indictment.
Jason Beer: Well, the instructions that you received set out the enclosures and draft indictment isn’t one of them?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, well, I’ve missed that. That’s me thinking – making a mistake because of other cases, then.
Jason Beer: I just want to look at the substance then, whether this looks to be the indictment that you settled, albeit dates and signatures have been added after you settled it. Can we just look at page 4, please, which is the next page, and scroll down, and scroll down. Is that the kind of back sheet that you would prepare when you were settling an indictment?
Warwick Tatford: No, I wouldn’t do a back sheet. If I sent an indictment by email, I would simply send it as an attachment to the email, I think. A back sheet – in this – around this time, we were still not using computers anywhere near as much as the barristers use them now but I would only send – attach a back sheet to a written piece of work, which was sent in the DX.
Jason Beer: : If we scroll up, please, we can see this has got a “Received” stamp on it of 11 March 2009, the day after you settled it. Do you think you sent one out in the post or by DX too?
Warwick Tatford: No, I don’t think so. I think I simply sent one out by email. The reason – the reason I don’t think this is the indictment I drafted is simply because of the formatting. I don’t think I’d have underlined names in quite the way it is. I may be in error about this because I’ve noticed my formatting generally is very different from now I format matters now. Looking at the dates, this might well be the indictment I drafted. I thought that it wasn’t because of the way it’s formatted but I’m not sure, I’m afraid. I don’t think there’s any significant difference from the indictment I drafted and the original draft.
Jason Beer: When you say the indictment that you settled and the original draft, what are you referring to as the original draft?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, the charges, I think, in this case, as there wasn’t a draft indictment, it would be the charges. So I used the charges, I compared them against the evidence and drafted the indictment. Maybe – I’m so sorry – sorry.
Jason Beer: In fact, if we look back at page 1 of the indictment, we can see there are some material changes. The theft count, you can see the period of the alleged theft is expanded in terms of its start date – can you see that
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: And this remained so, including up to the point of arraignment and at trial, 29 June 2005. Then if we look at the accounts, remembering previously there were four counts of false accounting, if we just scroll through this document – and keep going. We can see there are seven counts in total, six counts of false accounting. So it’s expanded from four to six. You think that was your work, the –
Warwick Tatford: Oh, yes, certainly the – focusing on the date is helpful because I’d have begun it with the beginning of Mrs Misra’s time at the West Byfleet office. The more I look at this, it may be I was misled by the way it was formatted. This may well be the indictment I drafted. I’m sorry if I made a mistake about that.
Jason Beer: That’s all right. Just going back to Count 1, then, and the theft, I think you just said that you expanded the period of coverage from the date that Mrs Misra started in the Post Office, at West Byfleet, that being 29 June 2005.
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: At the point of settling the indictment, had you got anything such as ARQ data?
Warwick Tatford: No Jason Beer: Did you subsequently receive ARQ data?
Warwick Tatford: Well, it was certainly – I think I did, I must have done. The defence was served it, I would have had it served at the same time. I know I advised that it be – that it be served on a disk, I think; they wished to print it out. I’m trying to remember whether I had a full copy myself but I would have thought I did, but possibly just on a CD-ROM.
Jason Beer: Thank you. If we just look at some other material that may help you
Warwick Tatford: Of course
Jason Beer: FUJ00122707. This is Penny Thomas, an employee of Fujitsu, her witness statement for the purposes of the Seema Misra prosecution, dated 4 February 2010. You can see what she says in the opening paragraph, if we just scroll down a little bit, to remind you of who she was. If we then turn to page 5, please, in that first substantive paragraph, she produces a copy of some ARQs, and she gives the number as her exhibit PT1, and produces a CD as her exhibit PT2.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I see
Jason Beer: Then, if we go to page 7, please. This is a document that she attaches to her witness statement, which appears to give the date range of the ARQ data that she was exhibiting. Can you see the date range in the right-hand column three boxes down –
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: 1 December 2006 until 31 December 2007. That period is a limited period covering only the false accounting charges, rather than the whole of the theft period, which ran from when Mrs Misra took over West Byfleet on 29 June 2005 to 14 January 2008. Do you know why that was, why the ARQ data was obtained for a different period of time than the allegations in Count 1?
Warwick Tatford: The – well, I think this ties in with the – what I set out in my abuse of process argument because the Post Office told me that it was – because of their contractual relations with Fujitsu, they wouldn’t be able to have ARQ data to cover the full indictment period and I’ve set out the reasons what – as to what I was told about that in my abuse of process argument. I acknowledge straightaway that the Court of Appeal in Hamilton have said that the full material must be served but I’ve set out the explanation as to why a shorter period was chosen. It is to do with the cost and the contractual arrangements but, also, a shorter period was chosen so that there could be a focus on a time when the data may not be affected by the thefts that Mrs Misra said that she’d dealt with.
Jason Beer: So that’s the explanation, cutting through matters, that you put when cross-examining the defence expert, Professor McLachlan?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You said – I’m not going to turn it up for the moment – the rationale behind why you were given that 13-month period, ie December ‘06 to the end of December ‘07, is because it’s not tainted by any suggestion of theft, ie suggestion of theft made by Mrs Misra. It’s clean data to look at for computer error.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, not tainted by theft by employees of Mrs Misra, not Mrs Misra herself. It’s to – clean data to focus on whether any patterns could be seen that might be suggestive of Horizon problems. It was really to focus on that – the three possibilities, that possibility that was raised by her defence at the trial.
Jason Beer: Professor McLachlan replied “But I requested the data for the entire period”, and you said: “I fully accept that but, if one requested and received every piece of paper for West Byfleet, we would probably fill this room.” Is that your understanding of why the data was not requested for the entirety of the period of the theft count, ie cost and volume?
Warwick Tatford: Cost, volume, those were the main reasons, I’m afraid. It was also – there was the additional consideration of an untainted period but I – the dominant factors were cost – the dominant factor was cost and the contractual relationship with Fujitsu, I think.
Jason Beer: I think you candidly accept in you witness statement that, on reflection, this was the wrong approach?
Warwick Tatford: Yes. Very much so. And – well, I set out reasons for that. I agree. I accept that. Yes.
Jason Beer: Would I summarise them correctly as follows: the Crown chose to charge an ongoing theft over a long period of time?
Warwick Tatford: Yes.
Jason Beer: Once the defence raised the reliability of Horizon, disclosing the Horizon data for the whole of the indictment period was not a matter of disclosing unused material; it was also the primary evidence upon which the Crown relied in order to prove that the property belonging to another had been appropriated by the defendant?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, that’s right, it was served as evidence.
Jason Beer: In other words, that data was necessary to prove the elements of the offence of theft?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I would agree with that.
Jason Beer: Therefore, Mrs Misra was entitled to receive the entirety of the data for that period as served evidence, so that her expert could analyse it and see whether the Crown had indeed proved its case?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I certainly would agree with that now. I’ve explained the reasoning. I think the reasoning now was wrong, as exposed by the Court of Appeal. But, actually, the way that you’ve exposed it shows that it’s wrong simply in its basic logic.
Jason Beer: Did you consider that the theft and false accounting charges were essentially alleging the same criminal conduct?
Warwick Tatford: No. I was aware of the case of Eden, which I referred to in my abuse of process argument, and the Crown has to consider very carefully whether to charge both types of offending. In this case, it was fully justified because it allowed Mrs Misra to plead guilty to what she accepted but also allowed the Crown, if it had the evidence to do so, to pursue the clearly more serious allegation of theft.
Warwick Tatford:
Jason Beer: So these were separate offences, reflective of two different types of alleged criminal conduct
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: The first being a theft charge relating to the alleged stealing of the money, the second being a false accounting charge or a series of false accounting charges relating to the alleged covering up of the theft?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, the false accounting was the covering up but Mrs Misra, in her interview, suggested she was covering up for thefts of others, so there was a different motive for that offence, which made it a less serious offence. If she was only convicted of that offence alone and found not guilty of the theft, she’d get a very different sentence. That’s why I thought it very appropriate to have the two different kinds of offending, albeit they’re linked but the motivations were different.
When someone dismisses advice by stating that whoever gave it doesn’t have proper credentials, so their advice must be wrong or unimportant. Here’s why you should never make this dismissal again:
First, a definition.
Credentials are any qualification, degree, or achievement that demonstrate suitabilty to comment on something, generally because they imply expertise. For example, having a PhD could be viewed as approporate credentials in the scientific field.
So, why is this dismissal problematic?
It’s problematic because credentials ≠ expertise.
Just because someone doesn’t have tangible proof of their expertise in a field doesn’t mean that they don’t have expertise in that field.
You can be an expert without credentials.
Society has become obsessed with credentialism.
This is the phenomenon of over-reliance on credentials in situations where they aren’t relevant or necessary.
Remember: You can pay for credentials but you can’t pay for expertise. One is bought and one is earned.
Advice should be treated on logic and merits, not on the source.
Dismissing advice because of who it originates from is a fallacy. To avoid using this fallacy, you should focus on addressing arguments rather than the credentials of those who made them.
Scott Forbes and Sandra Lean’s ‘expertise’ is to confuse the unsuspecting public with as much information, misinformation and disinformation as possible in relation to Jodi Jones sadistic and psychopathic killer and the case against him.
When and how did Sandra Lean ‘finally get access to the case papers’?
On the 28th of March 2021 Sandra Lean stated here (from approximately 10:44);
Next thing on this weeks agenda
Scott Forbes
Now I’ve seen so much stuff about Scott all over the place some of it very disparaging so I’d like to set the record straight on Scott’s involvement in all of this
So in 2006 this man walked into Scott’s caravans to speak to Corrine about some information that he had that he’d been trying to give to, initially the police and laterally Luke’s legal team, and nobody was listening to him
So that was where Scott Forbes involvement began
He was, obviously, trashed by the prosecution erm they they made up all sorts of utter nonsense about him to discredit his story and that that in itself was bad enough if you like
Now fast forward a couple of years and I’m studying for my PhD at Stirling university and Scott’s also studying at Stirling university so we started we we’d meet up for coffee now and again ‘cos I wasn’t up in Stirling very often we we’d meet up for coffee and we’d chat about the case
And then Scott became involved with Luke’s legal team as a trainee solicitor
He also became involved in another case in Scotland that he did some absolutely fantastic work on
Erm so yes Scott was involved both voluntarily and as a trainee solicitor with Luke’s legal representation and all these people saying that you know that he’s making it up
No no it’s absolutely true
Erm some people were talking about potentially a conflict of interest with Scott working on Luke’s case after he’d pointed out this information about Mark Kane
Now what I have to tell you is when I finally got access to the case papers every single thing, with the exception of the essay, every single thing that Scott Forbes said was backed up by the informa information in the case papers
So the scratches on Mark Kane’s face
Scott Forbes was not the only witness to those
The agitated behaviour he was not the only witness to those
Mark Kane being on the Newbattle Road that night which Scott actually didn’t say because he said Mark Kane couldn’t remember where he was
The information about him being on the Newbattle Road that night was in the case files from other witnesses
So I wanted to get that absolutely cleared up once and for all
Erm because I think erm doing the right thing, which Scott did, actually cost him dearly and to see him still being slagged off to this day for doing the right thing I thinks says everything that needs to be said about this case if we’re being totally honest (Sic)
Statements by Sandra Lean on the 28th of March 2021
But on the 1st of September 2022 Scott Forbes, using one of his numerous aliases Ambedker here on Twitter contradicted what Sandra Lean stated in March 2021 (above), and claimed Sandra Lean gave him ‘the paperwork in 2006’ as can be seen in the below screenshot;
On the 8th of February 2010 using the alias Angeline, Sandra Lean stated;
Trial transcripts are not “public documents” here in Scotland. It is possible to apply for transcripts, but it is very costly to do so, and given the length of Luke’s trial, you could be looking at a small mortgage for transcripts of the whole thing.
In England and Wales, following conviction, the paperwork relating to the case is returned to the convicted person or someone chosen by them (family, etc).
In Scotland, the only way an individual can get access to their own paperwork is if they choose to try to represent themselves – so long as a solicitor is working on the case, the documents officially are the property of the solicitor, and not the client. Many people find this quite shocking – the solicitor can choose not to show his/her own client paperwork relating to their case, and furthermore, is forbidden to disclose any documents to a “third party.”
This, of course, makes getting paperwork to journalists rather tricky, since solicitors face action by the law society if they are caught passing documents to anyone.
Angeline aka Sandra Lean – 8th of February 2010
And on the 11th of April 2010 Sandra Lean, using the alias Angeline stated;
The extent of the DNA evidence was not known to the family until they changed legal teams, following the failed appeal, as the previous team had not disclosed it to them. The DNA from Falconer was known about, as was the match to Kelly. Kelly was brought up at trial, and the presence of his DNA allowed to be “explained away.” For reasons which were never explained, the team dropped interest in Falconer during the appeal. As Corinne has pointed out, they were not told a great many things that they should have been told. The family did not know, until after the failed appeal, that there had been a “misunderstanding” between SLAB and the defence team – they were told that the DNA could not be tested for the defence because SLAB had refused to fund it. Numerous questions regarding paying for testing themselves were ignored. The rest of the DNA evidence has come to light since legal teams have changed.
Angeline aka Sandra Lean
Scott Forbes also made the following claim via Twitter on the 2nd of March 2021;
And Scott Forbes recently stated of Graham Mann;
In 2010, solicitor, Graham Mann and myself tracked Ms Bryson to a house in Newtongrange. After making inquiries at her old property, she called our office. She was angry that we were trying to trace her but agreed to meet with us.
We assured her we only wished to ask a few questions regarding the identification of Luke Mitchell. When we arrived at her home, her husband and mother-in-law were in attendance. They were angry that we had been looking for them and Graham Mann reminded them that it was our job.
Scott Forbes – August 2022
Graham Mann
Scott Forbes above statement, ‘and Graham Mann reminded them that it was our job’ adds yet further weight to Mark Kane’s statement below where he refers to Sandra Lean;
Anytime I contacted her on the ‘Luke Mitchell’ is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police.
Mark Kane Aka Mr.Rabbit
Why hasn’t Scott Forbes published his own statement(s), along with Mark Kane’s statement(s), and when does he, or Sandra Lean, plan to do so?
No one trashes your name, more than someone who is afraid you will tell the truth
Scott C Forbes
Scott C Forbes has chosen to “trash” Mark Kane’s name, and many other peoples names, not because these people are “afraid” as he claims, but because Scott C Forbes thinks he is entitled to do this.
Scott C Forbes also thinks he is entitled to say or write whatever he wants about the family members of Jodi Jones.
All of whom were ruled out as suspects!
Scott C Forbes’s “trashes” the name of anyone he chooses to target or who disagrees with the trash he chooses to talk and write about.
There will be more on Scott C Forbes statement “No one trashes your name, more than someone who is afraid you will tell the truth” in further parts of this blog series.
However to reiterate from Part 1 here, Scott C Forbes has chosen to not publish a copy of his witness statement, which he made about Mark Kane – which is a massive red flag!
There are numerous red flags regarding Scott C Forbes behaviour, far too many to count.
Scott C Forbes showed no real interest in Jodi Jones’ sadistic and psychopathic killer’s innocence fraud until around 2006.
If Scott C Forbes was really concerned about his “friend” Mark Kane’s behaviour, why did he leave it so many years before he finally tracked down and spoke to Jodi Jones’ killer’s mother Corinne Mitchell?
And why did Scott C Forbes choose to speak with Jodi Jones killers mother?
If Scott C Forbes was so sure Mark Kane was responsible, why didn’t he speak to the police?
Why did Scott C Forbes wait so many years before speaking out?
And why did Scott C Forbes only jump on Jodi Jones’ killer, and his enablers, fraudulent public relations innocence fraud spin campaign in/around 2006?
More importantly, why did Scott C Forbes contact the former RUC officer on the “confidentialhotlinenumber” here when he did (as referred to in Part 1here) and why wasn’t Scott seemingly speaking to Sandra Lean?
Again, where is the hard evidence that Scott C Forbes has ever been a practicing lawyer in Scotland? Has anyone bothered to ask him to provide documentation to back up his numerous assertions?
Instead of publishing his own statement, what Scott C Forbes has chosen to do is manufacture stories, seemingly from his warped imagination (or the warped imagination of others) and has attempted to attribute these manufactured stories to people like Mark Kane – who passed away in May 2018.
Mark Kane obviously cannot defend himself against Scott C Forbes false allegations, manufactured stories and preposterous nonsense.
Is the reason he hasn’t published his statement, because Scott C Forbes knows the content will cast yet further doubt on his false, malicious and manufactured allegations.
Many of the people who have chosen to listen to, or read, Scott C Forbes false and malicious claims and manufactured stories, know very little about Scott’s history and previous actions in murderer Luke Mitchell’s fraudulent public relations spin campaign.
Scott C Forbes stated;
Reading statements from staff at Newbattle Abbey College I couldn’t believe just how pathetic the police were.
One statement from an English teacher, Ms. McGillivray, who was asked if she had a copy of an essay about a man killing a ‘woman in the woods’ written by Mark Kane, denied having one and this somehow confirmed Kane wrote no such essay.
John Beckett, QC argued to the appeal court that a lecturer who receives thousands of essays in her career and who couldn’t remember receiving one essay, “confirmed Kane wrote no such essay”. This wasn’t even challenged by the defence.
Total Lack of Reasoning
It is not surprising Scott C Forbes appears unable to recognise his own lack of reasoning.
However it is unlikely a female English teacher, or any female, who could have read and received “thousands of essays in her career” would forget about one of her students writing an essay about “a man killing a woman in the woods”.
It is also not surprising why someone like Scott C Forbes does not appear able to recognise or understand why an essay by a student about “a man killing a woman in the woods” would stand out to most females reading it.
The below photograph is a screenshot from a 2003 promotional video here for Newbattle Abbey collage, and the person playing snooker is the late Mark Kane.
According to another tweet made by Scott C Forbes, he claimed Mark Kane was “onmethadone, valluim, speed, hash and alcohol on day Jodie was murdered” (sic);
Does the footage of Mark Kane from the Newbattle Abbey college promotional video here look like he was clean from drugs, like his mother Norma stated in 2021;
OK, he was a drug addict years ago but he was turning his life around.
He got off the drugs completely and was accepted into college.
In reality, it sounds like Mark Kane may have got drunk on that particular night and might of fallen over and got a “tiny” scratch on his face from falling.
All of this I reported to the police. Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after
Mark Kane – 1st of August 2014
If Scott C Forbes has nothing to hide, he would have no problems publishing his witness statement in full, with no redactions, so the public can see for themselves what he told police.
On 2nd of March 2021 Scott Forbes tweeted the following;
Screenshot of statement made by Scott Forbes on Twitter on the 2nd of March 2021
The same Newbattle Abbey collage promotional video here also includes footage of Scott C Forbes.
Still of Scott Forbes taken from the Newbattle Abbey college promotional video
Behaviour Patterns of A Sexually Deviant & Dangerous Adolescent Killer
Murderer Luke Mitchell didn’t have any real hobbies around the time he chose to commit his murder, instead he appears to have been fixated on having sex with numerous girls and threatening and harming them with knives.
Some people reading this may view this as normal behaviour for a 14 year old boy, and some people reading this may think it’s normal for a 12 year old boy to threaten an 11 year old girl with a knife for a kiss.
It isn’t and it’s disturbing!
These patterns of behaviour in a young boy are not normal, and alarm bells should be ringing loudly, especially to all the parents with young children of their own, who have chosen to blindly support murderer Luke Mitchell’s fraudulent public relations campaign.
None of the people who are blindly being taken in by Scott C Forbes stories, have the knowledge of all of the intimate details and behaviour patterns of murderer Luke Mitchell.
A few photos of the killer as a young child with a pony, does not paint the picture of the murderer he was turning into.
He had a fixation with knives and a sexually deviant streak.
He had been showing signs of sexual aggression since at least the age of 12.
You won’t hear about these behaviour patterns from people like Scott C Forbes, because he chooses to play down these behaviours patterns, and pretends they didn’t happen.
Excerpts from a 2005 media article, which has been reproduced in full here read;
The girl, who was just 11 at the time, was visiting Mitchell’s father Philip, a family friend. Mitchell, who was only 12, was also staying in the house in Livingston and the two youngsters were sharing a twin bedroom. In the middle of the night, he climbed on top of her, held a knife to her throat and demanded she kiss him. Last night she said: ‘I just can’t tell you how I feel about the verdict.’
Excerpts from a Daily Mail article by Grace McLean dated the 22nd of January 2005
The above wasn’t an isolated incident.
Showing signs of sexual aggression at the age of 12, and holding a knife to an 11 year old girls throat to coerce her into submission for a kiss, is a violent act.
Other young girls made similar allegations, which demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that was developing over time.
The sadistic, adolescent murderer was seeing several girls at the same time, and playing them off against each other.
A Killers ‘Well Being’ & His ‘Token of Remembrance’
The below photograph shows a memento murderer Luke Mitchell chose to inscribe and keep.
Many types of criminals will keep “trophies” or “Souvenirs” as a memento of their crime.
In most cases these same items will be used against them later as evidence and direct links to their involvement of the crimes.
But why do criminals do this? It seems like a strange thing to do especially in cases where the person has made extra efforts in other areas not to get caught, such as clearing evidence from the crime scene that may link them to it, or disposing of other evidence such as the weapon used or clothing worn during the crime itself.
Well the answer to this has many reasons behind it, and the types of trophies kept will vary from criminal to criminal.
Humans as a species are known to collect items we put value onto. This value can vary from sentimental or sexual value to monetary value.
Many adults will collect things that remind them of their childhood for example or will have a passion or hobby for something that requires them to accumulate a collection over time such as a coin or card collection.
A person may have no real use for such items to get them through daily life, however having these items will give them a sense of well-being.
This is a permanent reminder of the events leading up to that persons death, its a personal connection to them for the Killer and in many ways is symbolic of the perceived relationship they have with their victims.
Their successful crimes are achievements, in the eyes of a criminal they are worth remembering and what better way to remember than to keep a piece of it for yourself that you can look back on and relive the moment.
The items are valuable to the criminal in some way, as discussed above it could be to relive the moment, it could be for pride to display, it could be for gratification or even comfort.
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 