Page 22 - 3. 2014 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

but would like the information well before this date so that maybe the trial can be taken
forward. I would also like it sooner than later so the facts as to how Mr Patel has done this
can be shown to the crown.
(d) As stated to your mother when the information from the insurance company is disclosed
whether voluntarily or by Third Party Disclosure the Crown Prosecution Service would have
been invited to review the evidence. I do not have this information. I did request this
information in my defence case statement as it is information in Mr Patel's possession and the
prosecution could have asked him for this. Likewise, the first burglary this should have been
disclosed to us under normal disclosure rules, but the court has insisted on a section 8
application for this. As for what I said at my home and at police station is not the issue here I
knows what I said and was being honest as I did not think I had done anything wrong. I did
buy the items from Mohammed in good faith. (I asked you for details of Mohammed with a
view to taking a witness statement. I also advised you that he would have to be advised to
seek independent legal representation to avoid self in crimination. Never provided) For it to
have been a job lot of 5 of each or just 1 gazebo, and 1 chair which was found at my address I
think the police would have taken the same said outcome to this case. They wanted someone
for this case, and I was that person. This can be shown by any information we have asked for
not being given they still have not even given the CAD reports for that day in truth that there
was other police at the scene and let me in the building knowing I was there to hire my sound
system for a private party that night as I explained this to them when I got there. Let alone
how many times they attended the building on that evening even down to the council
attending with the police due to noise. There is also the case as to when I turned up at the
building and the police was already there, how is it when they did their checks, they did not
see that a Burglary had happened on that building on the
16/02/2013
and let us enter the building knowing this as really, they would have got that report back on
their checks that evening Which in my eyes does show a cover up as where are the reports as
it is to do directly with my case. The DC dealing with my case also dealt with the other case
on
16/02/2013
so, would also been aware of the condition of the building after the
16/02/2013
pictures where taken for the case of the
16/02/2013,
so, he would have been well aware the pictures taken for my case was the same so how could
he then charge me with all the damage to the building?
Where is the information that the police should have asked Mr Patel as to him securing the
building after the?
16/02/2013?
(e) This is a matter for cross examination and the officer in witness box where he does not
have any room to manouvere. Yes I am upset as I do feel I have been setup by the police and
they by doing this have allowed Mr Patel to use my case to make his claim to the insurance
company go ahead was this planned from the start and yes I have asked this to myself many
times and others I have spoken to have said the same said thing.
(f) Simon based on the forensic evidence recovered at the scene the police had reasonable
grounds to arrest you for this offence. So yes, I want my trail sooner than later as I want to
get on with my life and my business and yes, I do understand I could be found guilty for this
case but until I do, I should be able to run my business. And I don’t think I am asking too
much here.
451