Writer Eleanor Stefel stated in an article she wrote for the Telegraph on 28th July 2023 about violent rapist Andrew Malkinson;
The first he knew of the crime for which he would be wrongfully jailed, was on 2nd August 2003, when Greater Manchester Police (GMP) handcuffed him in Grimsby
Media Spin & Compensating Violent Rapist Andrew Malkinson’s VICTIM
The mainstream media are continuing to spin violent rapist, parasitic predator and convicted fraudster (Thailand 2001) Andrew Malkinson’s position.
His violent convictions were found to be “unsafe” by the court of appeal on the 26th July 2023.
The court of appeal did NOT find Andrew Malkinson “innocent” or “clear” him per se.
Will the ministry of justice be awarding compensation to Andrew Malkinson’s victim and if not why not?
A minute trace of undated, circumstantial DNA found on a piece of clothing worn by Andrew Malkinson’s victim does not erase all the other evidence which points to Andrew Malkinson and only Andrew Malkinson.
It is not known when Andrew Malkinson’s victim could have picked up this background circumstantial DNA, apparently belonging to a Mr B, who was almost 10 years younger than Malkinson.
Andrew Malkinson’s victim said her attacker was in his “early-to-mid” 30’s,
NOT his early 20’s – which is how old Mr B would have been in July 2003.
Some of the evidence which led to Andrew Malkinson’s convictions has been explored in this ongoing blog series, the index for which can be found by tapping on the button below;
If you were involved in this case in anyway back in 2003 and would like to contact Innocence Fraud Watch to speak about violent rapist Andrew Malkinson and his enablers innocence fraud – contact can be made by tapping on the button below;
All contact will be dealt with in the strictest of confidence
Media Spin
The mainstream media are spinning violent rapist, parasitic predator and convicted fraudster Andrew Malkinson’s position.
His violent convictions were found to be “unsafe” by the court of appeal (CoA) on the 26th July 2023.
The CoA did NOT find Andrew Malkinson “innocent” or “clear” him per se.
Some of the evidence that led to violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s convictions have been explored in this ongoing blog series, the index for which can be found by tapping on the button below;
In December 2022 it was reported that a Mr B had been arrested by police in Exeter after a minuscule amount of his undated, circumstantial DNA was said to have been found on violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims clothing.
Mr B was reported to be 48 years of age at the time of his arrest, meaning he was almost 10 years younger than Andrew Malkinson.
Andrew Malkinson’s victim had described her attacker as being in his “early-to-mid” 30’s.
NOT his early 20’s!
Obviously Impossible To Inflict Wound Without Removing Clothing
Writer Bob Woffinden stated on behalf of Andrew Malkinson in 2016;
The scientists considered whether the profile did match someone on the national DNA database, but then decided that it probably didn’t.
The FSS (Forensic science service) conceded that it is impossible to know which bodily fluid it derives from, or whether it is associated with the case.
It was because of the partially-severed nipple on the left breast that the prosecution was able to emphasise to the jury just what a vicious attack this had been.
Yet this evidence should be examined properly.
There was saliva staining at the site, from which a DNA profile was obtained, but it didn’t match Malkinson (though the profile could have matched the boyfriend); and the clothing on the upper body was not disarranged.
(The VICTIM’S).. fleece remained zipped up throughout and her bra remained in place.
It would have been obviously impossible for Malkinson to have inflicted the wound without disturbing the clothing.
Excerpts from Bob Woffinden’s book The Nicholas Cases published in May 2016
The miniscule undated, circumstantial DNA profile did not match “the boyfriend”.
When the criminal cases review commission referred violent rapist and convicted fraudster (Thailand 2001) Andrew Malkinson’s convictions to the appeal court they stated;
The new DNA evidence found by the CCRC does not prove that the man on the DNA database committed these or any offences.
If it was “obviously impossible” for violent rapist Andrew Malkinson “to have inflicted the woundwithout disturbing the clothing” in 2016 – why the double standards around Mr B in 2023?
Bob Woffinden also stated in relation to Andrew Malkinson’s victim;
There is also the matter of what happened to her at around 3.40am when she told her boyfriend that she had ‘found somewhere warm and dry’ and was ‘safe’.
Her calls were then discontinued for about 45 minutes. This is another unexplained part of the case.
Excerpts from Bob Woffinden’s book The Nicholas Cases published in May 2016
Could this be where and when the background circumstantial DNA of Mr B’s was picked up.
The Zipped Up Fleece
How would anyone be able to bite through the material of a fleece, a vest top and a bra – none of which had holes or teeth marks on or in them.
Part of Edward Henry’s argument during the appeal hearing was;
..commonly found in saliva
Which lies directly above the bra
And the reason why the bra is stained in blood is because her attacker virtually severed the nipple of her left breast
No teeth marks were found
But presumably biting through clothing
Practically severing the nipple of her left breast
And as we state at paragraph 9 the images help to illustrate why the jury would have been entitled to conclude that Mr B deposited his DNA on the area of potential saliva staining on the upper left area of the complainants vest top, while biting and severing her left nipple
And then I do not need to erm go further than that
Statements made by Edward Henry at around 34:04 here dated 26th July 2023
It is not known what Edward Henry said before he used the words “..commonly found” as the audio again dropped out at this point of the hearing, as was referred to in Part 21 of this ongoing blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below;
Misleading evidence was presented to the three judges presiding over the appeal hearing of violent rapist and convicted fraudster Andrew Malkinson.
Saturday 19th July 2003: Was the date of Andrew Malkinson’s Violent Attack & Rapes
Sunday 20th July 2003: Was the date Edward Henry claimed to the appeal judges police constables (Pc’s) Chris Baybutt & Gary Waite visited Andrew Malkinson at work
Your lordships the very next morning, purely as a result of a hunch, when the description of the attacker had been recited to them, the night before at the scene, police constable Waite and police constable Baybutt, on hearing the description of the attacker said ‘that’s Andrew Malkinson’ because about a month before they had stopped him erm, he hadn’t committed any offence, but he was seen riding pillion on the back of a young Mr Hardman’s moped
And they had stopped him, so as a result of the hunch they went to see him the following day
Immediately the day after the attack at his place of work
Statements by Edward Henry during Andrew Malkinson’s appeal hearing on 26th July 2023 here
Monday 21st July 2003: Said to be the date the VICTIM in this case gave her police witness statement
Monday 21st July 2003: Was the date Andrew Malkinson stated in 2016 (via writer Bob Woffinden) that Pc’s Baybutt & Waite visited him at work
The evidence was that at 2.00pm on the day of the attack two community beat officers, after hearing the description of the attacker, had ‘immediately’ and ‘simultaneously’ named Malkinson as the suspect.
Why would anyone, having heard of the attacker’s ‘smart’ clothes, instantly think of the generally dishevelled Malkinson?
Secondly, two days later, on Monday 21 July, the officers saw Malkinson at work.
Excerpts by Bob Woffinden’s taken from chapter 5 of his book The Nicholas cases
Friday 25th July 2003: The date the CCRC submitted to the appeal court judges that Pc’s Baybutt & Waite visited Andrew Malkinson at work
My learned friend and the respondent says that the commission has over stated this matter
In fact actually if we go to the statement of reason, eh and if I may ask you, and if I do erm ask you very briefly my lords to go to page 114, eh and eh paragraph 165
Forgive me 164, this is what the commission said
‘This is significant because the trial judge raised the question of whether the victim was mistaken about having scratched her attacker at all and told the jury that if she may have scratched her attacker then the person responsible for the attack cannot be the defendant
Dr Anderson’s mistake allowed the judge to suggest that the victim may have been mistaken in her account of scratching her attacker. This undermined an important defence point made by Mr Malkinson’s counsel at trial that the fact that Mr Malkinson was not injured or disfigured in anyway when he was seen by the police on the 25th of July, six days after the attack, meant that he could not have been the attacker’
With the greatest respect to my learned friend but also to the commission, erm the commission erm got that wrong
It was the very next day
Statements by Edward Henry during Andrew Malkinson’s appeal on 26th July 2023 at around 1:14:44 here
Who Was & Is Wrong?
It is not clear who was and is wrong in relation to the date Pc’s Chris Baybutt and Gary Waite visited Ellesmere shopping centre.
However it was reported that both Pc’s Baybutt and Waite were “recommended for a commendation” by Judge Michael Henshall, who presided over the February 2004 trial, for helping to bring violent rapist Andrew Malkinson to justice.
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;
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 