THIS IS HOW SERIOUS CRIMES ARE DEALT WITH BY THE POLICE IN THE U
 
 

Colin Peters,

7, Ladbroke Grove, 

Holmewood,

Bradford,

BD4 0BH.

 

 

Your ref. AR/JEM/DA4283
 

3rd March 2005.

 

Andrew Rennison,

Detective Chief Superintendent,

West Yorkshire Police,

Operational Support,

PO Box 9,

Wakefield,

WF1 3QP.

 

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter dated 1st February 2005, a copy of which was 
posted to me on the 22nd February 2005. 

I am dismayed at your response especially since you tell me that you 
have looked at my website at http://www.geocities.com/colinpeters2005.

 

On my website I make it very clear that the findings of the civil court 
were hopelessly wrong because Judge Hutchinson based his judgement on 
provably fraudulent claims and deceptions from the Bottomleys.

 

Though it might be distasteful to people both within and outside the 
legal system, it is a fact that the Bottomleys were successful in 
pursuing their criminal acts through the courts.

I briefly reiterate the main points in proof of this claim.

 

THE CONTRACT PRICE.

 

Although in a contemporaneous handwritten letter, Bottomley confided to 
a Council Officer that the contract price was in the sum of 14,000, the 
claim that gained him the benefit of legal aid, was that it was in the 
sum of 10,200.

 

The claim that gained him a favourable judgement was that it had been in 
the sum of 9,180.

I will remind you that I was not allowed sight of Bottomleys 
contemporaneous handwritten letter, which gave the lie to several of his 
accepted claims to the court, until well after the hearing, and too late 
to be of any use to myself.

I will remind you also that I was disadvantaged by being legally 
unrepresented.

 

THE SALVAGED STONE SLATES FROM THE ROOF.

 

The claims that gained Bottomley legal aid were that I had taken these 
slates and that they had a value of 2,000.  

He wanted this sum deducting from the alleged contract price.

 

The claim that gained Bottomley a favourable judgement was through his 
introduction of a new inducement to contract, which was that he had 
given me the slates in return for my working for the grant money of 
9,180 only.

 

The valuation document procured by Bottomley and purporting a value of 
2,000, is proven a forged instrument by documented evidence from the 
West Yorkshire Police.

 

THE BETTER QUALITY ITEMS SUPPLIED TOWARDS THE WORKS.

 

The claim that gained Bottomley legal aid was that he had supplied the 
better quality doors and windows etc.

Bottomley detailed how much he had allegedly paid for these items and 
wanted these amounts of monies deducting from the alleged contract 
price.

 

These claims were conceded to the court and another new inducement to 
contract introduced whereby it was claimed that I was working at no cost 
to the Bottomleys because I was building a showpiece to display to 
future clients.

 

Although this claim was and is the stuff of fairy tales, it was accepted 
by the court and referred to in the judgement of Judge Arthur 
Hutchinson.

 

From the above it can be clearly seen that one set of claims gained the 
Bottomleys a legal aid certificate, and another conflicting set of 
claims gained them a favourable judgement on the contract only.

 

Although I lost out on the new version of contract, I defeated the whole 
of a counterclaim, which was as equally fabricated as the claims of 
contract were.

 

You tell me that there is no likelihood of a successful case in the 
criminal courts, but how can this be since the proof of fraud and 
deception is there for all to see?

The evidence shows that fraud is involved beyond any doubt.

Either Bottomley got the legal aid certificate fraudulently or he got 
the advantageous judgement fraudulently, or, as I know, he got them both 
fraudulently.

 

Two conflicting storys do not make one right one.

 

It cannot be right that, in total, Bottomley has benefited to the tune 
of around 100,000 by doing nothing more than scheming and lying over 
and over again.

I know of his contacts but even so, if Bottomley is allowed to get away 
with this any longer, then there is no law in this country, and 
definitely no justice.

 

In view of the above, I ask that you reconsider your decision not to 
investigate.

 

I thank you for your expression of sympathy at my plight but I am still 
a victim of crime, and Bottomley, is an as yet, unconvicted criminal.

 

In 1986, once Bottomleys provably fabricated claims began to emerge 
through the documentation, as it became available, I stressed to my then 
solicitor that this was not simply a bad debt case, but a case of fraud 
and deception.

 

He did nothing about it, and advised me that litigation was the way 
forward. 

The chronological evidence shows that the first thing that I did once 
rid of him was to lay the evidence in proof of fraud before Detective 
Constable Jim Murphy of the Bradford CID.

 

Unfortunately, Jims advice was to keep with the civil courts.

 

It gives me no satisfaction to say that both my solicitor and Jim were 
wrong. Even allowing for the higher standard of proof required, I could 
not have fared worse in a criminal court because the proof of fraud has 
always been available.

 

I am certain that in a criminal court, where the charges were related to 
fraud, the swapping and changing of Bottomleys claims would have been 
his undoing, rather than his salvation, as they proved to be in the 
civil court.

 

I submit to you that the charges against the Bottomleys should now be 
ones of Perverting the Course of Justice, and Gaining a Pecuniary 
Advantage by Deception.

 

Yours Sincerely,

                               (Colin Peters)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 04/03/2005

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------        
                http://www.usenet.com