Former director of casework at the criminal cases review commission Sally Berlin, was involved in killer Susan May’s case and campaign.
Below is a reproduction of a statement made by Sally Berlin in November 2013 here;
Screenshot
In November 2020 Sally Berlin wrote to Alix Beldam, registrar at the court of appeal, and referred to “…allegations of perjury and perverting the course of justice”.
Below is a reproduction of Sally Berlin’s letter;
ScreenshotScreenshotScreenshotScreenshot
Carl Page
Did Sally Berlin and the criminal cases review commission consider the perjury in the Carl Page case, before they referred his conviction to the court of appeal, and if not, why not?
On the 10th March 2021, under the header BBRS bolsters ranks with deputy chief adjudicator hire, the Financial Accountant magazine reported the following (Source here);
Sally Berlin joins from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), where she was an executive board member and the director of casework operations.
The CCRC is the independent public body set up to review possible miscarriages of justice and which decides whether potentially unsafe convictions should be referred to one of the UK’s courts of criminal appeal.
As deputy chief adjudicator, Ms Berlin will work alongside chief adjudicator Alexandra Marks and is the first person to hold the role of deputy.
Following an early career in environmental health, Ms Berlin joined the CCRC in 2000, after qualifying as a barrister.
She has also been a member of a Cabinet Office appeal panel since 2017. The panel provides an independent avenue of appeal for civil service staff and contractors who wish to contest the refusal or withdrawal of security clearance.
The independent BBRS went live in mid-February with a brief to resolve outstanding historical and contemporary complaints from larger SMEs about their banks.
“Sally Berlin’s sustained track record at the Criminal Cases Review Commission demonstrates a rigour and intellectual discipline that will be a tremendous asset to us here at the BBRS,” Ms Marks said of Ms Berlin’s appointment.
“Working with absolute integrity and independence are essential features of the Commission and will be equally important at the BBRS. I am delighted that she is joining us so soon after our launch, thus enabling us to accelerate the pace of engagement with those who want to use our service.”
At some point after Rebecca Thomson’s article was published, and before Seema Misra’s trial was due to start, Seema apparently “turned up” at the shop of Josephine Hamilton.
Josephine Hamilton stated in her 2nd witness statement to the inquiry;
Seema Misra (a fellow sub-postmaster) saw the computer weekly article and turned up at my shop.
I took her to my solicitor and neighbour Issy Hogg.
Excerpts from Josephine Hamilton’s 10th of February 2022 statement of truth to the post office horizon IT inquiry here
The following excerpts are taken from Seema Misra’s trial testimony (from p.136 here);
Warwick Tatford: You did some research on the internet?
Seema Misra: No, just the day before my first trial and there was like, then there was like, there was an article from a computer weekly which is like when I read the cases the same thing happen with me as well like figures doubling up, we are having losses and..
Warwick Tatford: All right. Let me just cut the matter clearly if I may because this is new information for the jury. There have been some articles about whether the Horizon system is any good or not in various magazines, is that right, that you saw prior to your…
Seema Misra: The day before my first trial
Warwick Tatford: All right. So earlier in the history of the court proceedings you were aware that other people were saying there might be a problem?
Seema Misra: Yeah, and then I read and the same thing happen with me as well when I read that incident and I remember staff saying that as well, there could be a system problem
Warwick Tatford: Fine. I fully accept that that might have given you thought about another possibility. So let us leave that on one side. What I want to understand though is why in defence statements you only talk about theft. You don’t mention until the defence statement that was served in January of this year anything in that old defence statement about Junaid, about Michael and about how there were losses from the beginning. You don’t mention anything about that at all, do you?
Seema Misra: Yeah. That is what I said. Like when I got that Javed and Nadia red handed they been nicking the money. That is what I thought that time
Warwick Tatford: But you knew, Mrs Misra, that the losses had begun in 2005 from day one?
Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
Warwick Tatford: So it could not just be down to the thieves because they were happening when you were with Junaid?
Seema Misra: I was in – I was in complete mess anyway. I was not like pinpointing what is here and what is not. I was in like whole lot of mess. I was struggling with one counter, then I like because I was struggling trying to find where more money was going so like I was trying to like created more work for me because I was going on like a complete mess. So when I got them red handed I thought like it be them who were nicking the money
Warwick Tatford: You see, I suggest, Mrs Misra, that you were setting out one defence in your interview, theft. You were setting out one defence in your first defence statement, theft by employees. You then in a second defence statement add a whole raft of detail that you knew about at the time of your Post Office interview and at the time of your first defence statement. I am suggesting that these new additions have come because you have invented them?
Seema Misra: No
Warwick Tatford: You didn’t mention them earlier because they are simply not true?
Seema Misra: I didn’t invent them. This incident happened
Warwick Tatford: You know perfectly well, do you not, that in relation to some of those things you have read in articles that the prosecution have looked carefully at other complaints, have they not, and you have been disclosed material in relation to Calendar Square because that is an objective piece of material that gives a cause for concern about Horizon. You understand all that process, do you not?
Seema Misra: Yeah
Warwick Tatford: But you understand that the Post Office at the request of you and your solicitors have fully researched other articles and other suggestions of problems? You are aware of that, are you not?
Seema Misra: Yeah, that is right
Warwick Tatford: Thank you. So is it a case of you jumping on a bandwagon when you read something that might give you a hope and adding a few extra false limbs to your defence?
Seema Misra: No. If you recall, in my, I think it was Mr Dunks’ calls, I did make the calls on that, the losses as well and when Chesterfield transfer me to Horizon that…
Warwick Tatford: Yes, but you only made calls about the £6,000 loss according to Mr Dunks
Seema Misra: And when we go into the call there isn’t the call that I have been speaking to Chesterfield for two weeks and they ask me to ring Horizon help desk. There was a call, was it not? I think so
Warwick Tatford: I suggest there may have been some sort of disagreement with your staff and that prompted you to call the helpline, but whatever the rights and wrongs of that disagreement it does not go anywhere near to explaining why you were lacking £74,000?
Nick Wallis wrongly states in his book The Great Post Office Scandal;
As Seema’s trial date of 1 June 2009 approached, various preparatory hearings took place.
Excerpt by Nick Wallis from his book The Great British Post Office Scandal published by Helen Lacey & David Chaplin of Bath publishing via kindle October 2021
Seema Misra’s trial was due to start on Tuesday the 2nd of June 2009 – this fact was established during the 15th November 2023 inquiry evidence of prosecuting lawyer Warwick Tatford.
Hornswoggler Nick Wallis’s version of events differs from what Josephine Hamilton told the inquiry, in her “statement of truth”.
Below are further excerpts from Nick Wallis’s book;
The day before her trial, a desperate Seema was searching on the internet.
One of her search queries seemed to return a lifeline. ‘I put in something like “Post Office court case help,” ’ she said, ‘and Jo came up!’ A local news website was carrying the story of Jo Hamilton’s conviction.
Seema called Davinder in excitement. They decided to try to contact Jo. Even though the Post Office had long gone, Jo was still working behind the retail counter at South Warnborough Village Stores. South Warnborough Village Stores also just happened to be open on a Sunday, serving afternoon tea. Jo remembers taking Seema’s call. ‘She kept saying, “You’ve got to help me. You’ve got to help me.” She was crying and in a terrible state.’
The two women bonded on the phone. Jo told Seema about the journalist from Computer Weekly who had put together an investigation into Horizon.
These revelations seemed extraordinary to Seema and Davinder, who believed they were the only ones having problems with Horizon, because that’s what the Post Office had told them. Seema begged Jo for help.
Realising how little time was left, Jo ran over the road to Issy’s house and told her about Seema. Issy called up the Computer Weekly article on her computer. Jo wanted to know if there was anything that could be done. When Issy later told me about this dramatic moment, she laughed. ‘It was the day before the trial. Way too late. There was literally nothing I could do. Seema wasn’t even my client. I suggested to Jo that Seema should take a copy of the magazine to court, show it to the judge and ask for an adjournment.’
Jo ran back across the road, called Seema and explained what she had to do. The next day, Seema’s barrister approached the trial judge.
Excerpts by Nick Wallis from his book The Great British Post Office Scandal published by Helen Lacey & David Chaplin of Bath publishing via kindle October 2021
The “day before” Seema Misra’s trial was Monday the 1st of June 2009.
If Nick Wallis’s version of events is true, that Seema Misra contacted Josephine Hamilton on Sunday the 31st of May 2009.
Then Seema Misra wilfully made a false statement during her trial and committed perjury.
Why does Nick Wallis’s version of events differ to Josephine Hamilton’s version of events?
And why does Nick Wallis have Josephine Hamilton running “back across the road” to phone Seema Misra, if Seema was already at Josephine Hamilton’s shop?
On the 11th of May 2009 Rebecca Thomson wrote and published an article for Computer Weeklyhere.
At some point after Rebecca Thomson’s article was published, and before her trial was due to start on Tuesday 2nd June 2009, Seema Misra apparently “turned up” at the shop of Josephine Hamilton.
Josephine Hamilton stated in her 2nd witness statement to the post office Horizon IT inquiry;
Seema Misra (a fellow sub-postmaster) saw the computer weekly article and turned up at my shop. I took her to my solicitor and neighbour Issy Hogg. Issy managed to get the trial adjourned while a computer expert was appointed.
Excerpts from Josephine Hamilton’s 10th of February 2022 statement of truth to the post office horizon IT inquiry here
The following excerpts are taken from Seema Misra’s trial testimony (from p.136 here);
Warwick Tatford: You did some research on the internet?
Seema Misra: No, just the day before my first trial and there was like, then there was like, there was an article from a computer weekly which is like when I read the cases the same thing happen with me as well like figures doubling up, we are having losses and..
Warwick Tatford: All right. Let me just cut the matter clearly if I may because this is new information for the jury. There have been some articles about whether the Horizon system is any good or not in various magazines, is that right, that you saw prior to your…
Seema Misra: The day before my first trial
Warwick Tatford: All right. So earlier in the history of the court proceedings you were aware that other people were saying there might be a problem?
Seema Misra: Yeah, and then I read and the same thing happen with me as well when I read that incident and I remember staff saying that as well, there could be a system problem
Warwick Tatford: Fine. I fully accept that that might have given you thought about another possibility. So let us leave that on one side. What I want to understand though is why in defence statements you only talk about theft. You don’t mention until the defence statement that was served in January of this year anything in that old defence statement about Junaid, about Michael and about how there were losses from the beginning. You don’t mention anything about that at all, do you?
Seema Misra: Yeah. That is what I said. Like when I got that Javed and Nadia red handed they been nicking the money. That is what I thought that time
Warwick Tatford: But you knew, Mrs Misra, that the losses had begun in 2005 from day one?
Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
Warwick Tatford: So it could not just be down to the thieves because they were happening when you were with Junaid?
Seema Misra: I was in – I was in complete mess anyway. I was not like pinpointing what is here and what is not. I was in like whole lot of mess. I was struggling with one counter, then I like because I was struggling trying to find where more money was going so like I was trying to like created more work for me because I was going on like a complete mess. So when I got them red handed I thought like it be them who were nicking the money
Warwick Tatford: You see, I suggest, Mrs Misra, that you were setting out one defence in your interview, theft. You were setting out one defence in your first defence statement, theft by employees. You then in a second defence statement add a whole raft of detail that you knew about at the time of your Post Office interview and at the time of your first defence statement. I am suggesting that these new additions have come because you have invented them?
Seema Misra: No
Warwick Tatford: You didn’t mention them earlier because they are simply not true?
Seema Misra: I didn’t invent them. This incident happened
Warwick Tatford: You know perfectly well, do you not, that in relation to some of those things you have read in articles that the prosecution have looked carefully at other complaints, have they not, and you have been disclosed material in relation to Calendar Square because that is an objective piece of material that gives a cause for concern about Horizon. You understand all that process, do you not?
Seema Misra: Yeah
Warwick Tatford: But you understand that the Post Office at the request of you and your solicitors have fully researched other articles and other suggestions of problems? You are aware of that, are you not?
Seema Misra: Yeah, that is right
Warwick Tatford: Thank you. So is it a case of you jumping on a bandwagon when you read something that might give you a hope and adding a few extra false limbs to your defence?
Seema Misra: No. If you recall, in my, I think it was Mr Dunks’ calls, I did make the calls on that, the losses as well and when Chesterfield transfer me to Horizon that…
Warwick Tatford: Yes, but you only made calls about the £6,000 loss according to Mr Dunks
Seema Misra: And when we go into the call there isn’t the call that I have been speaking to Chesterfield for two weeks and they ask me to ring Horizon help desk. There was a call, was it not? I think so
Warwick Tatford: I suggest there may have been some sort of disagreement with your staff and that prompted you to call the helpline, but whatever the rights and wrongs of that disagreement it does not go anywhere near to explaining why you were lacking £74,000?
The day before Seema Misra’s trial, was Monday the 1st of June 2009.
Seema Misra did not call the helpline “for two weeks”, like she claimed to the jury, this was another of her bare faced lies.
She first called the helpline on the 21st of February 2006 and told them she’d had problems for “the last couple of weeks”.
Javed and Nadia, her two former members of staff, had left the West Byfleet post office by February 2006.
Seema Misra did not report Javed or Nadia to either the post office or the police for any alleged thefts.
On the 8th of April 2006 Davinder Misra, Seema’s husband contacted Surrey police and reported Nadia for allegedly being an “illegal immigrant”.
On the 12th of April 2006 former employee Javed, reported Davinder Misra to Surrey police for harassment and stated that “Mr Misra had started spreading rumours around the community, telling others that Javed had stolen £2,000 from the till and was not paying it back”.
Hornswoggler Nick Wallis’s version of events differs from what Josephine Hamilton told the inquiry in her “statement of truth”.
Below are a few excerpts from Nick Wallis’s book The Great Post Office Scandal;
The day before her trial, a desperate Seema was searching on the internet.
One of her search queries seemed to return a lifeline. ‘I put in something like “Post Office court case help,” ’ she said, ‘and Jo came up!’ A local news website was carrying the story of Jo Hamilton’s conviction.
Seema called Davinder in excitement. They decided to try to contact Jo. Even though the Post Office had long gone, Jo was still working behind the retail counter at South Warnborough Village Stores.
South Warnborough Village Stores also just happened to be open on a Sunday, serving afternoon tea. Jo remembers taking Seema’s call. ‘She kept saying, “You’ve got to help me. You’ve got to help me.” She was crying and in a terrible state.’
The two women bonded on the phone. Jo told Seema about the journalist from Computer Weekly who had put together an investigation into Horizon.
Seema begged Jo for help.
Realising how little time was left, Jo ran over the road to Issy’s house and told her about Seema. Issy called up the Computer Weekly article on her computer. Jo wanted to know if there was anything that could be done. When Issy later told me about this dramatic moment, she laughed.
‘It was the day before the trial. Way too late. There was literally nothing I could do. Seema wasn’t even my client. I suggested to Jo that Seema should take a copy of the magazine to court, show it to the judge and ask for an adjournment.’
Jo ran back across the road, called Seema and explained what she had to do. The next day, Seema’s barrister approached the trial judge.
Excerpts by Nick Wallis from his book The Great British Post Office Scandal published by Helen Lacey & David Chaplin of Bath publishing via kindle October 2021
Why does Nick Wallis’s version of events differ to Josephine Hamilton’s version of events?
Seema Misra has referenced Nick Wallis’s book in her statement to the inquiry (p.7 here).
Why would Seema Misra refer to Nick Wallis’s book in her statement, if she knew his version of events were wrong?
Why does Nick Wallis have Josephine Hamilton running “back across the road” calling Seema Misra, if Seema was already at her South Warnborough village shop?
The “day before” Seema Misra’s trial was Monday the 1st of June 2009.
If Nick Wallis’s version of events are true – that Seema Misra contacted Josephine Hamilton on Sunday the 31st of May 2009, then Seema Misra wilfully made a false statement during her trial evidence and committed perjury.
92: Seema Misra had been appointed an SPM in 2005. We note that in a report prepared by Second Sight in April 2015 (in connection with the possibility of mediation), the appellant is recorded as saying:
“she was surprised to find that discrepancies occurred on each day of her onsite training, particularly as the trainer had watched every transaction she carried out that week. She adds that in the second week, an unexplained shortfall of approximately £200 occurred whilst balancing, and that the trainer rang the Helpline for assistance. She says that the trainer followed the Helpline’s instructions, which had the effect of causing the shortfall to double, after which the trainer told her “we have to make the till good now and you might get an error notice”. She says that this ‘doubling’ of a loss also occurred on another unspecified occasion in relation to a £2,000 discrepancy. Post Office states that there are no records in the NBSC call logs of the call that the Applicant asserts was made by the trainer and that ‘due to the time that has elapsed there are no transaction logs available for the Applicant’s training period’.”
We observe that this appears to be a striking instance of a problem with Horizon, of which independent evidence was or should have been available from the person who was training the appellant in its use
Trial Evidence Verses Further Concoctions
The court of appeals paragraph 92 has been written off the back of Seema Misra, and her enablers, post trial concoctions.
Second Sight’s statement “she was surprised to find that discrepancies occurred on each day of her onsite training” is contrived.
During her trial Seema Misra only ever described two alleged “discrepancies” occurring at the end of each of her first two weeks “onsite training” during weekly balancing.
Tap on the button below to read thief and fraudster Seema Misra’s evidence in chief and cross examination;
Seema Misra also said nothing about Second Sights’ “£200” figure during her trial, and she most definitely did not say anything about any “shortfall” doubling (p.52c here).
The only time she used the words “200” during her evidence was when she chose to remind the jury, and everyone else, how much she had paid for the West Byfleet costcutters shop and post office (p.106e here).
Seema Misra also chose to lie to the post office Horizon IT inquiry on 25th February 2022 and attempted to re-write history. Referring to Michael the trainer she stated “…on Wednesday he was there with the balancing and all that, and there was a shortfall. It was in hundreds, I think a couple of hundred pounds. He called the helpline said he had been here whole week watching each and every transaction, me doing it correctly, but still there’s a shortfall. So the helpline asked him to do some procedure on the system and the figure doubled up” (p.44 & 45 here).
Seema’s evidence at trial was an alleged “£150” figure at the end of her first weeks onsite training (Wednesday 6th July 2005) and an alleged “£400shortfall” figure at the end of her second weeks onsite training (Wednesday 13th July 2005).
Seema Misra also said nothing about the onsite trainer ringing the helpline for assistance.
What she told the jury about trainer Michael was that “he made a phone call from office, I don’t know where” (p.52g here).
All call logs to the Horizon helpline number were disclosed and addressed during Seema Misra’s trial, and neither Michael the trainer or Seema had phoned the helpline during her second weeks trading and onsite training.
June 2005 Trainer Junaid
Seema Misra got the keys for the West Byfleet post Office branch on 29th June 2005 and started serving customers on 30th June 2005.
Although she had completed two full weeks training in a “classroom” setting in March 2005, during her first two weeks “live” in the branch, she was also supported by two trainers (p.117e here).
Junaid was the name of the trainer who supported Seema during her first week, from Thursday 30th June to weekly “balancing” on Wednesday 6th July 2005.
July 2005 Trainer Michael
Michael was the name of the trainer who apparently supported Seema in her second week, from Thursday 7th July 2005 to the weekly “balancing” on Wednesday 13th July 2005.
On 25th July 2005 a request was received for the West Byfleet branch to receive “ad hoc” training in relation to “balancing procedure”.
The request stated “Check daily procedures, weekly procedures, weekly Horizon reports and cash account”.
August 2005
Trainer Michael was allocated to return to the West Byfleet branch on Wednesday 27th July and Wednesday 3rd August 2005 to carry out this “ad hoc” training.
Seema Misra chose to lie by concealment to the jury about Michael’s return for “ad-hoc” training to her branch.
During the weekly ad-hoc training balancing in August 2005, it was established that Seema Misra’s post office was “holding a loss of £466.73 and an over of £96.80” which amounted to around £400.
Seema Misra chose to conflate her “onsite training” with trainer Michael, which apparently took place between Thursday 7th July to Wednesday 13th July 2005, with Michael’s return to her branch a few weeks later, on Wednesday 27th July and Wednesday 3rd August 2005 for “ad hoc” training on “balancing procedures”.
This “£400 short” figure, which Seema Misra pretended during her trial had been the “£400shortfall” figure at the end of her second weeks training on Wednesday 13th July 2005, was not flagged until 3 weeks later in August 2005, following the “ad-hoc” training (Source p.52e here).
According to Intervention manager Alan Ridoutt “That was put into the suspense account by the trainer ‘Michael”, who had told Seema Misra “that a voucher would be issued to clear it”.
Seema Misra was then “warned” by Alan Ridoutt that unless an error came back, she would be liable for the “losses”.
The jury in the 2010 trial were told by judge Stewart;
In early 2010 Jon Longman spoke to the trainers Michael and Junaid and to Timiko Springer about their dealings with the defendant.
They all said they had no recollection of events so long ago. There are no written reports to refresh their memory
Excerpts by Judge Stewart from 18th October 2010 trial transcripts p.15f here
Second Sight’s Concocted £2,000 Figure
Regarding the “£2,000” figure referred to by Second Sight in their report, on the day of her suspension, Seema Misra’s husband Davinder made a hand written statement which had included a name that looked like “Sarah”. It was stated during trial “I would say that is “Sarah” but I don’t know” (Source p.65 here). This appears to have been Shakia Suksener.
Davinder Misra’s statement read “We have around £2,000 short in the stock unit due to staff theft. It was more than what we have now. We did put some money in this stock unit to make it good. This is what we left, owed £2,000 which we need to put this money is taken out by Sarah” (P.65 here & p.83 here).
A few months before her trial finally began in October 2010, Seema dropped her false allegations of theft against Shakia.
Prosecutor Warwick Tatford addressed Seema Misra’s false allegations relating to Shakia Suksener to the jury stating “..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…” (p.18 here).
On 20th January 2020, the Metropolitan police service (MPS) received a letter from judge Peter Fraser via the crown prosecution service (CPS).
“The letter concerned high court proceedings relating to Bates and others v Post Office Ltd which concluded in December 2019”.
Judge Fraser’s 14th January 2020 letter to Max Hill, then director of public prosecutions, can be read in full here
Under the header Prosecution of Mrs Misra, Judge Fraser stated in part;
Mrs Misra was a SPM at West Byfleet in Surrey who was charged both with theft from her branch, and also false accounting. The sums in question in her case which formed the subject matter of the charges amounted to approximately £74,000. Mrs Misra pleaded not guilty, and her defence was that the Horizon system was to blame.
Excerpt from Mr justice Fraser’s 14th January 2020 letter to Max Hill
Seema Misra pleaded guilty to false accounting and her defence was initially that her former employees had stolen “£89,000” to “£90,000” in/around November-December 2006.
Her defence regarding Horizon only came about after she apparently read a Computer Weekly article the night before her trial was due to begin on 2nd June 2009.
To date (13th February 2024) Seema Misra has not retracted her false allegations against her former employees.
The contents of judge Fraser’s letter was “subsequently assessed and a criminal investigation was opened by the MPS”.
The police investigation into alleged criminal activity at Fujitsu and the Post Office has been named Operation Olympus.
The MPS will not be providing a running commentary on the criminal investigation which remains ongoing, but can confirm we are aware of the Criminal Case Review Commission’s referral to the Court of Appeal and subsequent proceedings. It can be confirmed that a man and woman, both in their 60s have been interviewed under caution earlier in September and October. No arrests have been made and enquiries continue.
To confirm the Met does not identify any person who may, or may not be, subject to an investigation. Being given this statement is not a confirmation of any name or profession media may attribute, or wish to attribute. It is given on the basis of being requested for information on the incident, on the date stated and at the location stated. Should media attribute a name or profession to the victim or the person under investigation this will not have been confirmed by the Met.
The MPS continues to be an interested party in the public enquiry and will be supporting the inquiry.
Hornswoggler Nick Wallis stated in his 18th November 2020 blog here
Although Mr Justice Fraser didn’t name Anne Chambers or Gareth Jenkins at the time, he did in his confidential letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, dated 14 January 2020. We know this because it is in the appendix of the CCRC’s Statement of Reasons, circulated to journalists today. In his letter, Mr Justice Fraser sets out what Mr Jenkins and Ms Chambers knew and concludes:
“in order to give fully truthful evidence to the court… namely the prosecution of Mrs Misra and the civil claim against Mr [Lee] Castleton, both Mr Jenkins and Mrs Chambers respectively should have told the court of the widespread impact of (at the very least) the bugs, errors and defects in Horizon that they knew about at the time that they gave their evidence.”
This letter was sent by the DPP to the Metropolitan Police, who immediately started investigating. Last week, Computer Weekly was told the Met had turned their ten month investigation into a criminal investigation. Today we have discovered the names of at least two of the individuals involved.
After some discussion, Lord Justice Holroyde decided there was no need for any need for any reporting restrictions to be imposed on the Court of Appeal proceedings in the light of the Met’s criminal investigation, but reminded the media of the “general need on their part to avoid reporting anything which may prejudice the ongoing investigation or any charges which may flow from it.”
Excerpts by Nick Wallis – Fujitsu staff under criminal investigation named dated 18th November 2020
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.
On the 2nd February 2023 Bill Robertson, who says he has apparently “researched alleged miscarriages of justice for around 20 years” had a blog published on Michael Naughton’s “CCRC Watch” website page.
Michael Naughton was involved in the innocence fraud phenomenon scam of self-confessed killer Simon Hall.
Tap on the button below to read more about actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall and his deceitful enablers;
Bill Robertson is involved with mass murderer, child killer, rapist and coercive controller Jeremy Bamber’s innocence fraud public relations spin campaign.
Convicted rapist & passport fraudster Andrew Malkinson
Violent Rapist Andrew Malkinson Described As Being “Forensically Aware”
Convicted rapist and passport fraudster Andrew Malkinson, originally from Grimsby, attacked his victim in the early hours of 19th July 2003.
He was subsequently found guilty for his crimes at Manchester crown court on 10th February 2004.
Andrew Malkinson’s trial solicitor Shah Ali had himself served a prison sentence for fraud and had been struck off the solicitors roll by the solicitors regulations authority (SRA).
A 2004 Bolton news article reported the following in relation to Andrew Malkinson’s trial;
The judge described 38-year-old Malkinson as a “sexual predator” and a danger to women when he was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court on Tuesday.
He was found guilty of attempting to choke, asphyxiate or stangle with intent to rape the 33-year-old woman as she walked home alone through Little Hulton following a row with her boyfriend.
She was dragged down a motorway embankment in Cleggs Lane and attacked in the early hours of July 19 last year.
Sentencing, Judge Michael Henshell, said:
“This is amongst the most serious cases of this type and these circumstances make you out as a sexual predator, and a man who is prepared to use extreme violence against a defenceless victim.
“I have no doubt that you pose a high risk to women that at present cannot be accurately assessed.
“The effect of this attack on your victim will live with her for the rest if her life.”
He recommended that Malkinson would be eligible for parole after 14 years and would serve a minimum of seven years, including the nine months he has been in custody already.
During February’s seven-day trial at Manchester Crown Court the victim — who cannot be named for legal reasons — told the jury how she thought she was going to die at the hands of her attacker.
On the 24th January 2023 the criminal cases review commission (CCRC) made a statement here.
Excerpts from the CCRC’s statement read:
CCRC Chairman Helen Pitcher OBE said:
“This referral highlights the importance of the CCRC to our criminal justice system. New evidence can come to light years after a conviction, and in this case years after our first review of Mr Malkinson’s application.
“Following Mr Malkinson’s application, we used our special powers and expertise to re-examine this case, instructing experts to undertake state of the art DNA testing.
The new DNA evidence found by the CCRC does not prove that the man on the DNA database committed these or any offences.
The CCRC has, however, passed the new DNA evidence to Greater Manchester Police for them to consider further.
Excerpts from the CCRC’s 24th January 2023 statement including comments made by Helen Pitcher – chair of the CCRC
Wasn’t it premature of the CCRC to pass their alleged “new DNA evidence” to Greater Manchester police when convicted rapist Andrew Malkinson’s conviction(s) have yet to been deemed ‘unsafe’ by the court of appeal?
And wasn’t it equally premature for Greater Manchester police to make an arrest whilst Andrew Malkinson remains convicted for his crimes?
According to a 3rd May 2023 BBC article a man was ‘arrested and released under investigation’;
Greater Manchester Police confirmed in January a man had been arrested and released under investigation in light of the new information, but no decision has yet been made on whether he will be charged.
A further excerpt from the BBC article, referring to the undated circumstantial DNA found on Andrew Malkinson’s victims clothing, read;
…in October, the sample was found to be a partial match for another man, who the court ordered can only be identified as “Mr B”, and forensic investigations were ongoing, with a final report due later this month.
A May 2023 Manchester evening news article by Neal Keeling stated;
Mr Henry said Greater Manchester Police were on notice about this matter from 2009 as to other DNA.
A forensic review done for the CPS in December that year had identified saliva on the bra.
It revealed a mixed DNA profile – the majority that of the victim – but it showed the prescence of at least two persons.
He said Mr B was consequently identified as someone who could have been identified by that DNA.
Excerpts by Neal Keeling for Manchester evening news article dated 3rd May 2023
As in the case of Scottish killer Luke Mitchell, the alleged saliva could have already been present at the scene of crime before Andrew Malkinson attacked his victim.
Or like in the case of killer Kevin Nunn, where background circumstantial DNA of another man featured in the case.
DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence and cannot be dated.
Convicted rapist Andrew Malkinson fled the area following his attack on his victim, who incidentally identified him during a police photographic identification parade.
The victim had said to rapist Andrew Malkinson before he rendered her unconscious she would “never forget his face”
Two other people also identified him following his victim just prior to his attack and rapes.
The CCRC made no reference in their January 2023 statement to all the circumstantial evidence which convicted violent rapist Andrew Malkinson in 2004.
Have the CCRC managed to magic away this evidence, like they did in the case of self-confessed killer Simon Hall in 2009, when they referred his murder conviction to the court of appeal.
Tap on the button below to read more on The Fraud of the Criminal cases review commission;
Fraud involves the false representation of facts, whether by intentionally withholding important information or providing false statements to another party for the specific purpose of gaining something that may not have been provided without the deception.
Often, the perpetrator of fraud is aware of information that the intended victim is not, allowing the perpetrator to deceive the victim.
At heart, the individual or company committing fraud is taking advantage of information asymmetry; specifically, that the resource cost of reviewing and verifying that information can be significant enough to create a disincentive to fully invest in fraud prevention.
As already stated in Part15 of this ongoing blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below, the criminal cases reviews commission (CCRC) made the decision to refer actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall’s conviction for his murder of Joan Albert to the court of appeal (on the 14th of October 2009) based on what they claimed was “new evidence relating to fibre evidence”
Innocence Fraud Is Very Real As Is Evidenced By The Simon Hall Case & Campaign
In reality the CCRC committed fraud, which if the three court of appeal judges picked up on – they chose to not address or comment on in their judgement.
What was however stated by the court of appeal judges in their 11th of January 2011 judgement was that;
The Crown acknowledged that the central feature of its case against the appellant was the evidence of fibre analysis
Excerpt from court of appeal judgement dated 14th January 2011[2011] EWCA Crim 4
Simon Spence
Simon Spence was instructed by Suffolk’s crown prosecution service (CPS) at the time of the December 2010 appeal.
It is not known if it was Simon Spence’s decision alone to make this false acknowledgement, or if he consulted with other people at the CPS who also agreed to go along with this.
However Simon Spence does not appear willing to address these serious matters.
How many other cases of the innocence fraud phenomenon has Simon Spence and the CCRC been involved with?
Prosecutor Graham Parkin made it clear in his closing speech* during killer Simon Hall’s February 2003 trial for his murder of Joan Albert, the “central feature” of the case were Simon Hall and the Hall families (Lynne, Phil and Shaun) lies and concoctions “woven into the general framework of the case”.
*The closing speech of a prosecution or defence lawyer is a summary of evidence heard during a trial and is the final attempt to address the court.
Graham Parkin stated;
Simon Hall was wrong in our submission when he said that this case is all about those fibres
Graham Parkin
Although Graham Parkin went on to state;
True it is that the finding of fibres is central to the prosecution case and of course without them there would be no case.
Graham Parkin
Graham Parkin also made it clear when he stated;
But it doesn’t rest simply on your assessment and your decision based on those fibres in Mrs Cunnison’s evidence.No it does not.
Graham Parkin
Graham Parkin also went on to state;
In fact I’ll go so far as to say this, the prosecution now have more evidence in this case for you to consider than we could ever possibly imagined we were going to have when I stood up to open it to you to outline it to you in other words just over a fortnight ago.
Now members of the jury we did not know nor indeed could we know that Simon Hall’s case was to develop well beyond what he had ever said before.
More particularly during the course of long detailed sensible interviews concluded by police officers in the presence of his solicitor throughout.
We did not know that his defence would include some material, and I’m going to say this, I’ll use the word deliberately and explain to you why I say it in a moment.
We couldn’t know that his case was going to involve material, which has been concocted.
Made up.
If you find it so to be you’ll have to ask yourselves the question why has it.
Because concocted means deliberate and dishonest.
To be woven into the general framework of the case, the general framework of his movements on that particular weekend of his lifestyle and those of his family generally. It is a serious submission that I make to you.
That Simon Hall aided by members of his family his rehearsed story, which they know in important parts not to be true.
He’s done it for an obvious reason the Crown say to escape proper justice. To stave a conviction for murder.
Others in his family have done it for a perfectly understandable reason, wrong though it is in the result.
Perfectly understandable isn’t it?
Mrs Hall said as you would have expected to, they can’t she can’t begin to believe that he Simon could do the thing which he is accused of.
And I’ll add to that what mother could?
Excerpts from the prosecutions closing speech by Graham Parkin starting at the bottom of page 16 continuing onto page 17 here
The CCRC & John Curtis Have Not Addressed Their Role In The Fraud
John Curtis – ‘head of legal’ for the criminal cases review commission
John Curtis who was the case review manager responsible for investigating killer Simon Hall’s conviction stated in January 2015;
The Commission’s contribution to society is important.
Miscarriages of justice remain a reality, as are the challenges to the organisation charged with their investigation.
Excerpt by John Curtis for Counsel magazine article headed Righting Wrongs dated 12th January 2015
What about the very real innocence fraud phenomenon?
How and why did John Curtis and the three CCRC commissioners James/Jim England, Julie Goulding and Ewen Smith ignore all the evidence against killer Simon Hall, and his family members (and others) who lied for him, in order to make their referral in October 2009?
What logic and reasoning did John Curtis and the three CCRC commissioners use during their review, investigation and decision making which allowed them to ignore all of this, and other evidence?
Exonerations Are Extremely Serious
A few months after John Curtis’s article was published the annual symposium of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) was held at the Wardman Park Marriott in Washington, D.C.
Collins told the audience of approximately 150 guests on the final day of the symposium.
“For our criminal justice system to go back and say that the decision of a judge or jury who decided to put a particular individual in prison [was wrong] . . . and suddenly say that the individual shouldn’t be there – and is therefore free to return to life in the public – is very, very serious”
Although the three court of appeal judges did not exonerate killer Simon Hall and upheld his murder conviction in January 2011, the CCRC were reviewing his murder conviction for a second time and were seemingly still focusing on the fibre evidence and were not perturbed by the Zenith burglary and other revelations around this time.
So whilst killer Simon Hall’s actual, factual guilt to his murder of Joan Albert was unravelling and being exposed, the CCRC were wasting further time, money and resources still looking for a route back to the court of appeal in an attempt to discredit the fibre evidence.
John M Collins spoke to Roberta Glass via her True Crime Report podcast in 2019 about how/why forensic science is being denigrated and challenged by the Innocence movement;
John M Collin wrote and published the Crime Lab Report: An Anthology on Forensic Science in the Era of Criminal Justice Reform in October 2019.
Crime Lab Report compiles the most relevant and popular articles that appeared in this ongoing periodical between 2007 and 2017. Articles have been categorized by theme to serve as chapters, with an introduction at the beginning of each chapter and a description of the events that inspired each article. The author concludes the compilation with a reflection on Crime Lab Report, the retired periodical, and the future of forensic science as the 21st Century unfolds. Intended for forensic scientists, prosecutors, defense attorneys and even students studying forensic science or law, this compilation provides much needed information on the topics at hand.
Part 20a of The Fraud Of The Criminal Cases Review Commission ~ Dropping Soon
Diana Garbutt was murdered by her psychopathic husband Robin Garbutt in the early hours of Tuesday the 23rd of March 2010.
While Diana Garbutt was sleeping, Robin hit her over the head three times with an iron bar.
Photo of the front aspect of the Melsonby village shop and post office, following Diana Garbutt’s murder at the hands of her husband
As part of his premeditated murder of his wife Diana and his plan to attempt to cover his tracks, murderer Robin Garbutt went on to serve around 60 customers in the Melsonby post office and shop, his wife Diana and he had owned and ran.
Robin Garbutt then decided to phone 999 in an attempt to pretend he had been held up by non existent armed robbers.
He also pretended his make believe armed robbers had stolen £10,000.00.
A brief extract of Robin Garbutt’s 999 call to the emergency service’s can be heard here.
It was reported in April 2011 here by the Daily Mail that the judge believed Robin Garbutt’s murder of his wife Diana was motivated by “fear of being exposed for stealing from the Post Office” and the judge was also reported to have stated “there was no struggle, she never awoke”.
Bizarrely the same article also stated “RobinGarbutt tried to cover his tracks from the moment he dialled 999”.
Killer & Psychopath Robin Garbutt
Detective superintendent Lewis Raw, was reported to have stated;
It is satisfying that we have been able to secure justice for Diana Garbutt and her family in this most tragic and distressing of cases
I hope the murder conviction of her husband Robin Garbutt will provide a measure of comfort and closure, allowing her family to start rebuilding their lives after a very traumatic year
The murder of Diana – and the subsequent arrest and charge of Robin Garbutt – has also caused a great deal of upset and distress to the residents of Melsonby
The murder of Diana – and the subsequent arrest and charge of Robin Garbutt – has also caused a great deal of upset and distress to the residents of Melsonby
In particular the original circumstances that she was killed during an armed robbery which turned out to be a bogus scenario made up by Garbutt to cover his tracks
I would again like to reiterate North Yorkshire Police’s sincere thanks to local residents who have supported the police throughout the investigation
As for Robin Garbutt, he has shown himself to be a calculating and deceptive individual who attempted an elaborate cover-up after he violently ended his wife’s life as she lay asleep in bed
His actions that morning not only killed Diana, they also devastated the lives of Diana’s family and plunged a small, close-knit community into fear.
That he did not have the decency to admit his guilt from the outset and therefore spare Diana’s family the pain of reliving the tragic events in full during a trial, demonstrates the type of selfish and deluded individual that Robin Garbutt really is
Xanthe Tait, the then deputy chief crown prosecutor for North Yorkshire and Humberside, was reported to have stated;
Diana Garbutt’s life was cut brutally and tragically short. Her family is left to forever mourn her loss
She was violently bludgeoned to death by her husband as she lay sleeping. It was a callous crime motivated by the basest of human characteristics
Robin Garbutt went to great lengths in creating a cover story involving a robber with a gun, bludgeoning his wife to death: a story which he maintained throughout the trial – lying about his finances, lying about his relationship with his wife and lying about the robbery – to conceal his appalling crimes
We have worked closely with North Yorkshire Police to build a robust prosecution case and secure justice for Diana. Our thoughts are with her family and we hope that today’s conviction will bring them some measure of comfort and peace
Killer & His Enablers Fraudulent Public Relations (PR) Campaign
Some of killer Robin Garbutt’s family members, including his mother Joyce Brook, his sister Sallie Wood and her partner Mark Stilborn, once headed up Robin’s fraudulent public relations campaign.
However at some point Jane Metcalfe, who had apparently been a friend of Sarah Bradley, a defence witness at Robin Garbutt’s murder trial, and one of his previous girlfriends, now heads up the fraudulent PR campaign.
Sadly Jane Metcalfe has been (And is being) conned, groomed and exploited by psychopathic killer Robin Garbutt, and many other people.
On the 6th of June 2020 Sandra Lean published a YouTube video here in which she stated;
Hi I’m Sandra Lean and this is the truth seeker project
Imagine being accused, publicly named and shamed for a terrible crime that you didn’t commit
Imagine being locked up for the rest of your life for a terrible crime that you didn’t commit
Nobody’s listening nobody believes you nobody cares
I’ve been working with people in exactly those circumstances since 2003
Ordinary people just like you just like me going about their ordinary lives until this nightmare engulfed them
I’ve launched the truth seeker project to try to highlight and raise awareness of just how easily a wrongful accusation or conviction could happen to anyone of us
Every Sunday round about three O’clock I’ll be broadcasting interviews with families battling wrongful accusations and convictions, exonerees, media personnel, legal experts to show how many threads weave together to create the circumstances that make it possible for wrongful accusations and convictions to happen
I also want to show how difficult it is to stop the runaway train that is a wrongful accusation or conviction once those fields are in motion and the enormous battle people caught in that nightmare face
You’ll be hearing from families of school boys to men of the church, from single mums, to nurses to postmasters because wrongful accusations and convictions don’t just happen to one type of person they could happen to anybody and that includes you
There is a website with much more information about the people you’re going to be hearing from in the coming weeks with the links below it’s W W W dot the truth seeker project dot org and there’s also a patron page if you would like to help support this work so that it can continue, the links also are below
Unfortunately due to a glitch with YouTube which I’m trying to get sorted out the live interviews can’t be streamed directly to the truth seeker project channel
So the live steams will be shown here on my doctor Sandra Lean account and then will be uploaded for anyone that missed the live stream to watch on the truth seeker project channel
We’ll be kicking off on Sunday 7th June at 3pm with Jane Metcalfe whose going to be telling us all about the case of Robin Garbutt
So I look forward to seeing you there thanks for listening
Sandra Lean
It is not known who the alleged ‘postmasters’ Sandra Lean claimed her podcast audience would be hearing from, however Sandra published another video eight days later (Link here) which she called ‘How you can support the TruthSeeker Project’.
This video differed slightly from Sandra’s first video to launch her new YouTube channel, and was shorter. Sandra Lean stated;
Hi I’m doctor Sandra Lean and this is the truth seeker project
Imagine being accused, publicly named and shamed for something that you didn’t do
Imagine being locked up for the rest of your life for something that you didn’t do
Nobody’s listening nobody believes you nobody cares
Since 2003 I’ve been working with people in exactly those circumstances, ordinary people, just like you, just like me going about their ordinary lives until a wrongful accusation or conviction plunged them into a living nightmare
I’ve launched the truth seeker project to try to raise awareness of what happens when the justice system gets it wrong and how difficult it is to put it right
The project aims to give a platform and a voice to those already caught in this nightmare
Every week I’ll be uploading new video interviews with those people to allow them to tell their stories in their own words so that the truth can be shared and I’ll also be campaigning for change so that innocent people can no longer be railroaded into wrongful convictions
I need your support to allow me to continue to do this work
There are so many people who need help and so few people to help them
I know that some people are wary of the way patreon is set up to take recurring monthly payments so on each tear I’ve given an explanation of how to cancel if you only want to make a one off donation and I’ve also said if you leave me an email address I will send you a reminder to do that and if all else fails and a second payment or another payment is taken out – drop me an email and I will refund it (laugh)
You can also follow the progress of the project at our website W W W dot the truth seeker project dot com
Thanks for your support
Sandra Lean
Nick Wallis “Wanted To Cover Robin’s Case”
On Sunday the 7th of June 2020 Jane Metcalfe appeared alongside Sandra Lean on her Truth Seeker Project podcast but by the 19th of July 2020 Sandra’s project appeared to have run it’s course.
Sandra Lean stated during her video with Jane, which can be viewed and listened to here (Extracts below begin at approx 48:28);
One other thing that I wanted to bring in, the Post Office – so, there’s been this big case about all these people that were accused, some of them convicted for stealing from the Post Office
It was actually the Post Office’s own software that had introduced that was miscalculating and making it look like there was money missing when it wasn’t, and they’ve had quite a success in the courts, the Postmasters that took that case that case to court. So, just to clarify, was that the system
That was in place in Robin and Diana’s Post Office?
Sandra Lean
Jane Metcalfe responded by stating the following;
Yeah. Yeah, exactly the same system. And at appeal we were able to prove there was no – at appeal we were able to talk about that. But the Post Office Horizon case is massive. I don’t want to say too much about it really because it’s kind of ongoing. Because Robin had – Robin’s team – Robin has – another application has gone into the CCRC, the Criminal Case Review Commission, with lots of new evidence in it. And hopefully this time the CCRC will see that this man is innocent and even though they’ve had previous applications, this one’s got more clarity in it. The lawyers are as we speak, preparing an addendum, which is in addition to the CCRC application because Robin’s application went in in December and the judgment didn’t come through for the Post Office Horizon until after the application had gone in. So there’s another being prepared now. But the CCRC have referred loads of cases, which is fantastic. Loads of Post Office Masters – and as you say, some of them went to prison. Their lives were ruined by – and the most troubling thing of all is the Post Office knew, the Post Office knew for ten years what the – and they used to tell individual Postmasters. They’ve had a massive programme on Radio 4, anyone can find it now, it’s out there. It’s called The Great British – The Great Post Office something or other, it’s been on Radio 4 everyday. Nick Wallis is one of the investigators who worked on it, a journalist, I’m not sure if he’s a journalist but, anyway, he’s a documentary maker. He’s a great guy. I think there’s a programme coming in the next few nights on television about it. In fact, he wanted to cover Robin’s case. He contacted me and said ‘How come we’ve never known about this case of Robin Garbutt? I can’t believe I don’t know about this case.’ And there’s hope that sometime we’ll do something on the case. He’s just been so wrapped up in what they’re doing now with the Post Office Horizon – that at some point there’s a chance that he will do a piece on Robin’s case as well, because it all ties in.
Jane Metcalfe
It is not known exactly on what date in 2020 Nick Wallis ‘contacted’ Jane Metcalfe about Diana Garbutt’s psychopathic killers fraudulent public relations campaign, and although Jane has been/and is sadly being duped, conned and exploited – she was right when she claimed to Sandra ‘…it all ties in’..
Dupe ~ Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab) Aka Iain McNicol
Iain McNicol
On the 25th of February 2020, Iain McNicol had raised Diana Garbutt’s psychopathic killers name during a House of Lords debate (Transcript here), an excerpt reads;
There were other cases influenced by Horizon’s problems. Its records were used as evidence against Robin Garbutt, who was accused of stealing money and murdering his wife.
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 