Misuse of Protection from Harassment Act against Justice Campaigners

[PeterMartin]

Hello,

Thank you for allowing me to join your group. I have been campaigning on the Matthew Hamlen case which has clearly been a miscarriage of justice. We have taken a low profile on that on legal advice, so I'm not going to say too much about this case just at the moment. However, I would like to point out the dangers of the misuse of the Protection of Harassment Act against campaigners.

https://insidetime.org/beware-the-1997-prevention-of-harassment-act/

I could have gone on to say that I was twice brought to court for openly challenging the evidence given by a prosecution witness in a high profile murder trial.  It was clearly perjured. On neither occasion was any evidence offered. The intention was not to secure a conviction. I had a cast-iron defence because the PHA exempts anyone who is engaged in the "prevention or detection of crime".

The intention was to secure a restraining order in each trial to prevent me doing what I was previously doing totally legally, which is why I do have to be careful about what I say in public. Being truthful is no longer a valid defence in this country.

[Admin]

Welcome to the forum Peter.

A little background to the case...

DETECTIVES spent years probing the death of Georgina Edmonds, who was killed with her marble rolling pin at her Hampshire home in 2008.

The 77-year-old was tortured by her murderer, Matthew Hamlen, in a bid to get her to tell him her debit card PIN - but he was only found guilty after TWO trials.

Mrs Edmonds was bludgeoned and stabbed to death in her own home in the village of Brambridge. The 77-year-old widow was living alone in the property when she was attacked. She was described as a woman with restricted mobility but an "independent character who walked her two cocker spaniel dogs, drove her own car and did her shopping locally".

Mrs Edmonds was found dead in the kitchen of her riverside cottage in a pool of blood by her son, Harry, who lives in a larger house on the same estate.

She was stabbed 37 times with a knife on her chest, neck and upper back before being beaten with a marble rolling pin broke into three pieces.

A two-year manhunt began afterwards with almost 2,000 DNA samples taken from local people in an attempt to identify the killer.

Matthew Hamlen was convicted of murder.

The married dad-of-one was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years behind bars.

Hamlen, who was originally charged with her murder in 2010, was cleared of her murder in 2012.

But he was re-arrested in 2014, following a relaxation of the double jeopardy law, which had previously prevented anyone being tried for the same crime twice.

He was then convicted - four years after he was cleared of the crime - following fresh evidence which led to a six-week trial at Winchester Crown Court.

Hamlen, who had a history of domestic violence and cocaine use, was also suspected of dealing drugs and was thought to be considerably in debt.

He had always denied any involvement in the killing.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3130963/georgina-edmonds-murder-matthew-hamlen/

[PeterMartin]

Thank you for the above is the official narrative of the case as reported by the Sun. We perhaps shouldn't be too reliant on accounts by such papers as the Sun, the Mail and the Express.

Matthew has admitted the recreational use of cocaine. He denies dealing in any illegal drugs. The history of "violent domestic abuse" relates to one particular domestic incident in which his partner admits it was partially her doing as well. There were no charges brought.  Since this one particular incident the couple had gone on to become married and have a child between them so the decision of Hampshire police to take no further action at the time would appear to have some justification. In any case, if Matthew had broken any laws relating to Class A drugs, or anything else, there other more appropriate charges than Murder.

The murder was indeed horrific in its nature. The question is who was responsible? The evidence against Matthew was shaky, to say the least, which is why he was acquitted in his first trial which was held in 2012 or some 4 years after the crime in 2008. It was just two years later in 2014, some six years after the crime, that the police put their hand into the evidence bag to "find" another sample of DNA that they had somehow missed previously. Some of us aren't totally convinced about this!

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14805191.murder-detective-martin-chudley-receives-award-for-work-in-snaring-matthew-hamlen-murderer-of-georgina-edmonds/

The issue that has most concerned me is the nature of the evidence on stature given by the police prosecution witness. She calculated that the killer was between 5ft 11in and 6ft 2in tall. Matthew's prison record shows him to be 5ft 9in tall. She calculated the height to the base of the neck to be between 5ft 5.5in and 5ft 6.5 in. Independent measurements show Matthew to be 5ft 0.5in. She calculated the length of trainers worn by the killer to be between 319 and 371 mm. See attached pdf file for photos and other comments.

Note that I am not allowed to use the real name of the expert witness on a public forum even though no evidence has ever been presented that I have committed any criminal offence.

This is what I would like to concentrate on rather than the wider issue of Matthew's case at the moment

[Myster]

For those unfamiliar with the full story of this case...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_eJQKXr5zI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Al8cXxEpnw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzn4kJM-IHw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihys4_3h9jw

[PeterMartin]

Probably the best place to start is the BBC Crimewatch program that was made shortly after the crime itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5luEqyXgAe0

It raises some obvious questions.

If the motive was robbery, why was £30 in cash left in the kitchen? It isn't mentioned in this video but we also know that Mrs Edmonds had expensive rings on her fingers plus an expensive watch on her wrist. We also know she had an alarm bracelet which she could have used if she felt herself to be in any danger.

Why would anyone torture an old lady for her pin number when there was no way to check it? Why would the killer leave it until later in the evening to try out Mrs Edmonds bank card?

Why would anyone go around the back to climb in through the bedroom window when someone was close at hand with a key to the cottage?  It wasn't quite as close as shown in the BBC video but they were close enough.

Why would anyone steal a mobile phone just to throw it over to the opposite side of the riverbank? Why not throw it in the water? Why steal it in the first place when there were more valuable options at hand?

Why would anyone want to waste time telling the telephone operator why they went in through the bedroom window rather than just concentrating on the basic facts of what had happened and the location on the emergency?   "You can call an ambulance just to be on the safe side" ??? How odd is that?

[Myster]

Thank you for the above is the official narrative of the case as reported by the Sun. We perhaps shouldn't be too reliant on accounts by such papers as the Sun, the Mail and the Express.

Matthew has admitted the recreational use of cocaine. He denies dealing in any illegal drugs. The history of "violent domestic abuse" relates to one particular domestic incident in which his partner admits it was partially her doing as well. There were no charges brought.  Since this one particular incident the couple had gone on to become married and have a child between them so the decision of Hampshire police to take no further action at the time would appear to have some justification. In any case, if Matthew had broken any laws relating to Class A drugs, or anything else, there other more appropriate charges than Murder.

The murder was indeed horrific in its nature. The question is who was responsible? The evidence against Matthew was shaky, to say the least, which is why he was acquitted in his first trial which was held in 2012 or some 4 years after the crime in 2008. It was just two years later in 2014, some six years after the crime, that the police put their hand into the evidence bag to "find" another sample of DNA that they had somehow missed previously. Some of us aren't totally convinced about this!

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14805191.murder-detective-martin-chudley-receives-award-for-work-in-snaring-matthew-hamlen-murderer-of-georgina-edmonds/

The issue that has most concerned me is the nature of the evidence on stature given by the police prosecution witness. She calculated that the killer was between 5ft 11in and 6ft 2in tall. Matthew's prison record shows him to be 5ft 9in tall. She calculated the height to the base of the neck to be between 5ft 5.5in and 5ft 6.5 in. Independent measurements show Matthew to be 5ft 0.5in. She calculated the length of trainers worn by the killer to be between 319 and 371 mm. See attached pdf file for photos and other comments.

Note that I am not allowed to use the real name of the expert witness on a public forum even though no evidence has ever been presented that I have committed any criminal offence.

This is what I would like to concentrate on rather than the wider issue of Matthew's case at the moment

Very difficult and prone to error trying to estimate someone's height from a grainy image taken by a CCTV pointing downwards, but...

If the Tesco Express on Twyford Road (A335) was built using the common brick size of 215mm long x 102.5mm wide x 65mm high (65mm brick + 10mm joint height equates to 75mm or roughly 3")... then the distance from ground level to the top of the ATM metal surround (i.e.twenty-one and and a half brick courses) is 21.5 x 3" = 64.5" or roughly 5' 4".  The top of the ATM user's head when he's looking down at the screen, appears to be say, 1 to 2 brick courses (3" to 6") above the surround, making his total height something of the order of between 5' 7" and 5' 10".

According to Matthew Hamlen's prison medical record in your pdf, his height is 5' 9".

Tesco Express ATM location in Eastleigh...

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9795549,-1.349197,217a,35y,9.69h/data=!3m1!1e3

Hemispherical CCTV camera located to the right of the CASE security alarm housing on the white fascia board...

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9794932,-1.3495284,3a,39.5y,109.73h,84.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNq9uZdQtEUxR9Iiugg1cTA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[PeterMartin]

So you saying that the expert witness was so hopeless at her job that she calculated between 5ft 11in and 6ft2 in whereas she should have calculated between 5ft 7in and 5ft 10in? But that she was still good enough to appear on the witness stand to help obtain a guilty verdict in a high profile murder trial and send someone to prison for life?

So why did she say, in the witness box, 6ft 1in for Matthew's actual height which is what he appears to be from a police photo (also in the pdf download)? How can he be 6ft 1in in the photo and 5ft 9in according to his prison medical?

I'm curious to know why you're trying to defend the indefensible. Isn't this supposed to be a miscarriage of justice website?

[PeterMartin]

You're almost right about the 5ft 4in to the top of the ATM.  We measured 5ft 5in as in the attached photo.

However the other photo shows 'ATM man' to be taller than your estimate when you allow for the stooped posture . We don't disagree with the calculation of 5ft 11in to 6ft 2in. Except we would put him towards the top end of this range. The estimate of 5ft 6in +/- 0.5 inch to the base of the neck is problematic in that this is only 5in, or possibly 5.5 in, shorter than the lower estimate of height. 8in is more like it for the top of the range but even so is slightly less than I would expect if my measurements on people of a similar height is anything to go by.

We've also done our own calculations on foot size based on our measurement of the paving tiles. We don't disagree with the 319mm to 371mm estimate but would put it on the lower side at somewhere around 330 mm or approx a size 12. Matthew is sized 10 with his trainers being less than 300 mm long

[Myster]

Probably the best place to start is the BBC Crimewatch program that was made shortly after the crime itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5luEqyXgAe0

It raises some obvious questions.

If the motive was robbery, why was £30 in cash left in the kitchen? It isn't mentioned in this video but we also know that Mrs Edmonds had expensive rings on her fingers plus an expensive watch on her wrist. We also know she had an alarm bracelet which she could have used if she felt herself to be in any danger.

Unlike as shown in the Crimewatch reconstruction, the £30 wasn't necessarily on display and the intruder didn't notice it or find it. As for the watch and jewelry, maybe he wasn't interested in bling having thought he had the correct pin to obtain cash direct, and in a hurry to get away before being discovered.  What evidence is there that Georgina wore an alarm bracelet when attacked?... and if so, did she use it?

Why would anyone torture an old lady for her pin number when there was no way to check it? Why would the killer leave it until later in the evening to try out Mrs Edmonds bank card?

How was he supposed to check the pin when most people destroy the code when their debit card is received?   If he did discover the code by force, maybe it was wrong and, as was known, the ATM swallowed her card as a result of two or three attempts.  Obviously the killer left it until late (10:40pm) and dark when few, if any, people were likely to be around and the CCTV's clarity would be less than during daylight. Didn't Matthew Hamlen live near the Tesco Express at the time?

Why would anyone go around the back to climb in through the bedroom window when someone was close at hand with a key to the cottage?  It wasn't quite as close as shown in the BBC video but they were close enough.

Again unlike the Crimewatch recon, according to Ian Wrightson's account he arrived at the scene a bit later after being phoned by Harry Edmonds, by which time, concerned that there was no response at the door and from Georgina's phone, Harry had already decided to look for another entry point, i.e. a partially-opened window and, as he explained in his 999 call, they both met each other in the kitchen...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5ceoizlHGk
 
Why would anyone steal a mobile phone just to throw it over to the opposite side of the riverbank? Why not throw it in the water? Why steal it in the first place when there were more valuable options at hand?

The killer might have aimed to throw it in the far side of the water but it overshot, or aimed for the distant vegetation/scrubland beyond and it fell short...https://youtu.be/5luEqyXgAe0?t=271

Why would anyone want to waste time telling the telephone operator why they went in through the bedroom window rather than just concentrating on the basic facts of what had happened and the location on the emergency?   "You can call an ambulance just to be on the safe side" ??? How odd is that?

I've listened to this call several times and imo Harry Edmonds doesn't appear to waste any time obfuscating re. entering by the window, even though under pressure having just discovered his mother lying prostrate on the floor.  And by asking for an ambulance, perhaps he thought there might be a chance that she could be saved... people do utter what seem to be odd things when rushed and stressed.  I have to say though that under the circumstances, Harry Edmonds sounded remarkably cool in relaying the facts precisely... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y84aMBGEm4

[PeterMartin]

You may just possibly be right in some of your explanations regarding these oddities but even so none of these point to Matthew as being the murderer. The PM report also showed that Mrs Edmonds had choked on food as a result of being struck on the head which is inconsistent with the torture theory.  It is consistent with her sharing a meal with someone she knew and being taken unawares by a fatal blow. The PM report doesn't say the wounds were inflicted post mortem. We do have the evidence showing that Mrs Edmonds was wearing the alarm bracelet at the time of her death.

I would be happy to share the evidence we have with you but I would like to know who I'm talking to. My email address is peter_martin_2001@hotmail.com

PS I don't think you have it right about the ATM swallowing Mrs Edmonds bank card. If you check the BBC crimewatch video at about the 5 minute mark you hear DCI Paul Barton say that the killer doesn't hang about. He tried the card just once then he left. This in itself is odd. Having gone to so much trouble to get the card we might have expected that he'd have another try. Maybe put the number in backwards or try a lesser amount. This isn't consistent with someone who was desperate to obtain some cash. It is consistent with someone who was trying to create the impression that robbery was the motive.

Your explanation for the window entry would be more plausible if this had happened earlier. But why wait for half an hour until someone who has keys appears on the scene?

[Myster]

You may just possibly be right in some of your explanations regarding these oddities but even so none of these point to Matthew as being the murderer. The PM report also showed that Mrs Edmonds had choked on food as a result of being struck on the head which is inconsistent with the torture theory.  It is consistent with her sharing a meal with someone she knew and being taken unawares by a fatal blow. The PM report doesn't say the wounds were inflicted post mortem. We do have the evidence showing that Mrs Edmonds was wearing the alarm bracelet at the time of her death.

I would be happy to share the evidence we have with you but I would like to know who I'm talking to. My email address is peter_martin_2001@hotmail.com

PS I don't think you have it right about the ATM swallowing Mrs Edmonds bank card. If you check the BBC crimewatch video at about the 5 minute mark you hear DCI Paul Barton say that the killer doesn't hang about. He tried the card just once then he left. This in itself is odd. Having gone to so much trouble to get the card we might have expected that he'd have another try. Maybe put the number in backwards or try a lesser amount. This isn't consistent with someone who was desperate to obtain some cash. It is consistent with someone who was trying to create the impression that robbery was the motive.

Your explanation for the window entry would be more plausible if this had happened earlier. But why wait for half an hour until someone who has keys appears on the scene?

1. It depends on which video one watches. Paul Barton states here that he thinks ATM man used the card a couple of times before being swallowed up...

https://youtu.be/q30IsxG8nLY?t=1120

https://timo.vn/en/blogs-en/chia-se-hay-blog/debit-card-swallowed-banks-atms/

2. I don't know what the exact time gap was between Harry Edmond's arrival at the scene and Ian Wrightson (with friend whose car had blown a tyre) showing up at around 4:50pm.

I'll have a think about your offer of more info... Thanks.

[PeterMartin]

Paul Barton's memory is probably at fault in the much later Killer in my Village episode  because we do know that we had a report of someone putting something in a bin which was thought to be the bank card but as far as we know this was never recovered.  It wasn't what he said at the time. It will be worth checking on this point to see if it was ever recovered and tested for DNA evidence.

The timeline is that Ian Wrightson arrived at the estate about 4.50 pm and took out Mrs Edmonds' two dogs for a walk with his colleague Bob Dole. Harry arrived back at shortly after 5pm, so just missing Ian Wrightson,  and claimed that he was worried because the cottage was in total darkness and he had feeling that something wasn't right. Harry thought that it was unusual. Ian Wrightson didn't because Mrs Edmonds would often take an afternoon nap and his assumption was that she was still asleep so didn't want to disturb her. Harry then went back to his own house, Kingfisher Lodge, and according to his statement switched on the central heating, changed his shoes, and tried to contact his mother by phone. It was some half an hour later that he met up with Ian Wrightson at Fig Tree Cottage when he returned with the dogs from his walk.

If he was worried why didn't he go in through the window right away?

Paul Barton says in the Crimewatch video that it was "bizarre" that the killer locked the door behind him when he left Fig Tree Cottage. I've never understood his thinking. Why would it be? The killer obviously didn't want the crime scene to be discovered too quickly.

PS. I've just had another look at the video clip on the KIMV program on the link you supplied and we can see that ATM man did have the bank card in his hand as he walked away. See around the 19.30 mark.

PPS. Please do get in touch. Especially if your motivation is to get to the bottom of what went on that day in 2008. Both Matthew's family and myself take the view that whoever killed Mrs Edmonds does deserve a lengthy prison sentence. If this turns out to be Matthew so be it. But the evidence is that it wasn't him.