From the letters below it can be seen that Lord Imbert cannot find flaws in the evidence whichs proves one of two things. Either Kent Police and the nat DNA data base do not work well together, or Mr Imiela was framed by Kent Police, and said framing was supported by CPS, Judge, Media, and even Imiela's defence lawyers:
From: PETER IMBERT <peterimbert@btinternet.com>
To: Jeff Webb <jeffwebb36@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, 16 November 2012, 0:23
Subject: Re: repeat letter
Mr.Webb, Please do not send me any more e-mails about the Imiela case. Just look at the whole trial. As I remember it there was an indpendent (non police witness), a near neighbour, a lady who phoned Crimestoppers because she had suspicions about Imiela. In any event you didn't start off your e-mail in a sensible way. To begin by saying that as a retired police officer I didn't need to be reminded that "English Police are very corrupt". That is an attrocious accusation, and I will not be answering any more of your e-mails, but be careful what ridiculous and general accusations you make or you might find yourself in court having to answer for your assertions. P.Imbert.
From: Jeff Webb <jeffwebb36@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "peterimbert@btinternet.com" <peterimbert@btinternet.com>
Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2012, 9:24
Subject: Fw: repeat letter
Dear Sir
Being a retired police officer you probably do not neeed to be reminded of the fact that English Police are very corrupt. Bearing this in mind I have come to the conclusion that Kent Police might be interferring with my john.bsuk e mail account, thus causing you not to receive my previous letters. This would of course explain the lack of responce to said letters, hence I have decided to send this reminder from another e mail account. Please give me your thoughts pertaining to my misscarriage of justice investigation
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: John Beaufoy <john.bsuk@yahoo.com>
To: jeffwebb36@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2012, 16:12
Subject: Fw: repeat letter
--- On Sun, 9/23/12, John Beaufoy <john.bsuk@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: John Beaufoy <john.bsuk@yahoo.com>
Subject: repeat letter
To: "peterimbert@btinternet.com" <peterimbert@btinternet.com>
Date: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 10:07 AM
Dear Sir,
I have written a few times asking in you can find flaws in the flaws I found pertaining to the case against Mr Imiela. From the letter below you can see I have been working on this case for a few months, and you will also see that Professor Jamieson has not been able to find a flaw in my thinking, although he does sound doubtful that Imiela's defence would allow such corruption against their client. This in turn shows that professor Jamieson has very little doubt that the Police, CPS, and Judge would sink to such low levels.
John Squire
PS although I have watched lectures by professor Jamieson and have the utmost respect for him, it would seem that I have more experience than him pertaining to English defence lawyers. I have documented evidence of actions on the part of defence lawyers ( and lawyers prosecuting police officers) which could only be explained by extreme stupidity, or batting for the other side.
From: John Beaufoy [mailto:john.bsuk@yahoo.com]
Sent: 19 July 2012 04:45
To: p.a.chin@hull.ac.uk; Allan Jamieson
Subject: DNA Data base england
Dear sirs,
I am investigating a possible misscarriage of justice. I have come to some conclusions and require for an expert to look at them to see if there are flaws in my thought path:
The case is MR Imiela who was conficted of the trophy rapes in Kent and M25 regions.
In The first rape the police recovered a good DNA sample but said it matched no person on the data base
On another rape they found a finger print on a shopping bag but could not trace it .
A few days/ weeks before his arrest Mr Imiela was put forward as a suspect and was asked to give dna and finger print samples. He was then arrested on the grounds that said samples matched those picked up at the rape scences.
Simple up to now isn't it, but now comes the difficult bit
In 1988 Imiela went to prison for armed robbery, he was released in 1996 at a time when DNA samples were being taken from every prisoner who was serving more than two years question if Imiela committed the first rape or the shopping bag rape why couldn't the police match his prints to the national data base records of Imiela
Now comes the nasty bit if I am correct about Imiela's innocence and the DNA data base. Then the Police, the CPS, the defence Solicitor and the Judge would have had this information, and Knew Imiela was innocent, but the jury would not ...that is why they found him guilty.
Please give me your thoughts even if they disagree with mine
Regards ......John Squire
FROM:
•Allan Jamieson
TO:
•John Beaufoy
Message flagged
Friday, July 20, 2012 4:00 PM
Dear Mr Squire
I do have some knowledge of this case. As I understand matters, Mr Imiela was convicted of a series of rapes. Consideration has been given to mounting an Appeal, but I am unaware of the progress of that.
There are a number of reasons why a match between a suspect and a crimestain may not have been made. Most likely would be the possibility that the crimestain, for whatever reason, was not on the National DNA Database.
I have never come across a case where the defence have not explored everything within their knowledge.
Because of my knowledge of the case, I regret that I cannot enter any further correspondence on the matter.
Thank you for considering me.
Regards
Allan
Professor Allan Jamieson----- Forwarded Message -----
From: John Beaufoy <john.bsuk@yahoo.com>
To: "peterimbert@btinternet.com" <peterimbert@btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:39 PM
Subject: Fw: July letter sent to house of lords and repeated yesterday
Good Morning my Lord:: Below is a section of a speech you made in the house of Lords. Perhaps you would like to explain why Imiela was not on the DNA data base. The Data base started in 1995 and he was released in 1996 (armed robbery) if this is the case the police should not have needed to take a DNAsample from Imiela
John Squire
Crimestoppers scheme, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, began in this country in 1998. Although I had by then taken on the job of Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, I can claim no credit for the scheme having been adopted throughout the Metropolitan Police area and the extraordinary successes it has subsequently achieved. My predecessor, Sir Kenneth Newman, had set the ball rolling, together with a youngish businessman who had seen the system working in New Mexico and had brought the idea to the UK. That businessman is now a Member of your Lordships’ House. Although some might not like his political benefactions or his business successes, it is not putting it too highly when I say that I firmly believe that if it had not been for him and his support for Crimestoppers, some young people may well have died from brutal and inhuman criminal attacks.
I have one example. In November 2001 a 10 year-old girl was abducted from outside a community centre in Ashford in Kent. The child was taken to nearby woodland where she was viciously assaulted and raped. Yes, a 10 year-old girl. A full DNA profile was obtained from the residue on the girl’s body, but that did not match with anything on the national DNA database. Kent Police then carried out intelligence-led screening of 2,000 men from a local estate who volunteered their DNA samples, but again no match was found.
Some eight months later, a 30 year-old woman in Earlswood, Surrey, was out walking. She was beaten to the ground and raped. DNA low copy number technology was used to obtain a partial profile, which was found to match the profile discovered after the 10 year-old had been assaulted and raped in Ashford in November the previous year.
Two further attacks, one on Putney Heath and Wimbledon Common, and the other on Epsom Common, led to the setting up of an inquiry and surveillance
20 Mar 2008 : Column 394
operation involving six police forces: Kent, Surrey, the Metropolitan, Hertfordshire, Thames Valley and the West Midlands. Due to the locations of the offences, the inquiry came to be known as the search for the M25 rapist. Around 350 officers from the six police forces were involved. A second screening of a further 1,000 men, based on police intelligence of likely suspects, was undertaken but, again, no DNA match was found.
In October 2002, a 14 year-old girl was raped in Stevenage. Fortunately, although seriously traumatised, she was able to help police compile a picture of her attacker which was distributed to the media, together with the Crimestoppers number. An anonymous caller contacted Crimestoppers with information, which led police to the house of Antoni Imiela, a 38 year-old railway worker living in the village of Appledore in Kent. Although the information was initially given to Crimestoppers anonymously, the person who informed it then told the press that she had done so. A DNA sample from Imiela was taken by detectives and forwarded to the forensic science laboratory, but before the result was known, Imiela kidnapped and indecently assaulted another 10 year-old in Birmingham. He was arrested as soon as the sample that he had given detectives was found to match the DNA profile from the first assault and rape of the 10 year-old child in Ashford one year previously.
After Imiela’s arrest, the widespread investigation team was reduced from 350 officers to 30. More than 100 scientists in five forensic science laboratories had worked on the case and the lengthy investigation was estimated to have cost well in excess of £2 million. Imiela was subsequently convicted of seven rapes, and the kidnap, indecent assault and attempted rape of yet another 10 year-old girl. He was given seven life sentences
