Tag: Trisha Hose

The Telegraph’s Eleanor Steafel & Her Fallacy On Violent Rapist, Parasitic Predator & Convicted Fraudster Andrew Malkinson (Part 39)

Eleanor Stefel
Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson

The Fallacy

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

Statement by Eleanor Steafel for the Telegraph article headed Andrew Malkinson on his wrongful rape conviction: ‘I was 37 – now I’m 57 and I have been cheated’ dated 28th July 2023

Eleanor Stefel’s above statement is a fallacy.

After 18 Years Violent Rapist Andrew Malkinson Confessed In 2021 He “..Could Hear People Talking About It”

On 24th September 2021 Emily Dugan stated during a 2021 podcast;

Six days before this 

A horrific and brutal rape had happened near by

In the early hours of the 19th of July a mother of two was attacked and beaten on her way home and left for dead

It was a huge shock to the local community

Statements by Emily Dugan published on 24th September 2021 in part 1 of a 6 part podcast called Seventeen Years

Violent rapist and parasitic predator Andrew Malkinson then stated;

I could hear people talking about it 

I thought oh

No I’m not massively surprised this is a really rough area 

I could tell, I could tell it was a rough area 

Erm but, but it was right on the periphery of my awareness you know

Statements by Andrew Malkinson published on 24th September 2021 in part 1 of a 6 part podcast called Seventeen Years

Tap on the button below to read more in Part 11 of this ongoing blog series;

PART 11 Bob Woffinden, Emily Dugan & Will Roe’s Version Of Events. Violent Rapist, Fraudster & ‘Holiday Psycho’ Andrew Malkinson’s Version Of Events & The Rebranding Of A Dangerous Sex Offender & How He Continues To Get ‘Caught In The Lie’ & How His Stories Still Don’t Add Up 

Link to Part 40 here

Andrew Malkinson Innocent? Don’t Believe The Hype!

*LIVE* From New York City with Roberta Glass, from the True Crime Report, Who is ON the Record

Will The Ministry Of Justice Be Awarding Compensation To Violent Rapist, Parasitic Predator & Convicted Fraudster (Thailand 2001) Andrew Malkinson’s VICTIM & If Not Why Not? (Part 33)

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;

The Spin Public Relations Campaign Of Violent, Rapist, Fraudster & Former Amateur Boxer Andrew Malkinson (AKA Andrew Strugnell) & The Criminal Cases Review Commissions & Their “Special Powers”

Link to Part 34 here

Did The Criminal Cases Review Commission & Edward Henry Present The Appeal Judges Notes By Convicted Fraudster & Lawyer Shah Ali (Who Had Also Been Struck Off By The SRA) As Though It Were The Evidence Of Violent Rapist Andrew Malkinson’s VICTIM? (Part 32)

Convicted Fraudster Shar Ali

Shah Ali, from the Burton Copeland practice in Oldham, Manchester was violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s lawyer.

Sometime after Andrew Malkinson’s February 2004 trial he learned Shar Ali had been to prison for fraud and struck off by the solicitors regulations authority.

In 2016 writer Bob Woffinden stated;

He then learned for the first time that, some years earlier, his lawyer had served a prison sentence for fraud and been struck off the solicitors register.

Unfortunately, this does not provide grounds for appeal.

The only course of action left to Malkinson was to complain to the solicitor himself.

He was merely rebuked for his ingratitude. ‘I would remind you’, the solicitor responded, ‘that the jury were out for over nine hours before they came to majority rather than unanimous decisions in relation to each of the convictions – I hardly call that incompetent or improper preparation of your case.’

Excerpts from Bob Woffinden’s book The Nicholas Cases dated May 2016

Shah Ali Struck Off The Solicitors Roll

Bob Woffinden also stated;

Malkinson’s solicitor, who was then practising in Oldham, pleaded guilty to fraud offences and was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment.

He was struck off the solicitors’ roll in December 1993.

In 2002, he applied to be readmitted.

Malkinson noted wryly that his application was based in part on the fact that he had ‘worked closely’ with the police and, indeed, his application was supported by the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester.

Despite this, in March 2002, his application for readmission was rejected.

Nevertheless, he went on to represent Malkinson at his trial in February 2004 and, of course, conveyed nothing of this to him.

Convicted Fraudster Shar Ali’s Notes Appeared To Be Used As VICTIMS Trial Evidence During Appeal Hearing

During violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s appeal hearing, Edward Henry appeared to be using a solicitor notes, to present to the appeal judges as Andrew Malkinson’s victims evidence.

It is not known if it was convicted fraudster and struck off solicitor Shar Ali’s notes, however Edward Henry stated;

We erm naturally erm cannot obtain a transcript of her evidence but we have the note of her evidence.

Statement by Edward Henry during violent rapist Andrew Malkinsn’s 26th July 2023 appeal hearing from around 54:30 here

A solicitor note is not Andrew Malkinson’s victim evidence heard during the 2004 trial.

Edward Henry went on to state;

Eh and eh it has been quoted faithfully in the grounds of appeal at paragraphs 77

Which my lords is in the core bundle at tab 4 at electronic pagination 146.

Statements by Edward Henry during violent rapist Andrew Malkinsn’s 26th July 2023 appeal hearing from around 54:30 here

Edward Henry appeared to be referring to the “grounds of appeal” submitted to the court of appeal by the criminal cases cases review commission.

Edward Henry then when on to state some of the following;

..clear evidence of scratching her attackers face with her left hand and losing a nail on that hand in the process.

She is recorded as telling the jury

‘It was a life or death battle for survival. I managed to get my hand free. I reached up and dug my hand into the right hand side of his face and scratched him from near his eye and cheek, down towards his jaw…

Statements by Edward Henry during violent rapist Andrew Malkinsn’s 26th July 2023 appeal hearing from around 54:30 here

After Edward Henry had read the solicitors note, appeal judge Lord justice Holroyde asked Edward Henry the following question;

That, that’s what counsel’s note at trial

Question by one of the appeal judges 57:53 here

To which Edward Henry stated;

That is, that is the solicitors note erm of the trial erm my Lord

So that’s the solicitors note of trial

Statement by Edward Henry at around 57:56 here

Did the criminal cases review commission and Edward Henry present the notes of convicted fraudster and struck off lawyer Shar Ali to the appeal judges, as opposed to the official court transcript of Andrew Malkinson’s victims evidence?

Link to Part 33 here

If You Were Involved In Violent Rapist Andrew Malkinson’s Case In 2003 Or Were A Witness & Would Like To Make Contact About His INNOCENCE FRAUD – Read More Here (Part 31)

Contacting Innocence Fraud Watch

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;

CONTACT

Alternatively we can be contacted on Twitter here

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;

The Spin Public Relations Campaign Of Violent, Rapist, Fraudster & Former Amateur Boxer Andrew Malkinson (AKA Andrew Strugnell) & The Criminal Cases Review Commissions & Their “Special Powers”

Link to Part 32 here

Violent Rapist Andrew Malkinson & How Forensic Scientists Had Previously Said It Was Impossible To Know If The Undated, Circumstantial DNA Was Associated With The Case, The Criminal Cases Review Commission & His VICTIMS Zipped Up Fleece Top (Part 30)

Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson in July 2023

“Mr B” Arrested In December 2022

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. 

Statement by the CCRC here dated 24th July 2023

If it was “obviously impossible” for violent rapist Andrew Malkinson “to have inflicted the wound without 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;

PART 21 What Did Edward Henry Say When The Microphone Dropped Out During Appeal Hearing Of Violent Rapist & Convicted Fraudster Andrew Malkinson 

Link to Part 31 here