Sunday, 9th September 2001

The Real Crime Is Lies, Lies and More Lies

Double-Dealing TV 'Shockumentary'

With over forty years spent in prison I thought that I had met the worse of the scumbags that were put on this earth.

I was wrong.

I missed out on people like the cretin TV producer Chris Oxley, the unskilled producer of Real Crime, The Gang The Krays Feared.

The writer of the song 'Backstabber' no doubt had in mind the duplicitous Chris Oxley when the inspiration came to write the lyrics.

When I first met Oxley he was all-smiles, disarming, genial and courteous. I was pleased to return the bonhomie.

With Oxley it is a veneer. He is the typical conman. The type that would sell his own mother if the price was right. They should supply an air freshener with him.

He never once told me that he was attempting to make a documentary programme on Charlie, Eddie Richardson and me. Instead he, and his cohorts, led me to believe that it was an ordinary interview for a TV programme on gangland.

His intention was to produce a TV documentary that was intended to shock viewers.

I hope the finished Oxley product did shock people but not for the reasons Oxley intended.

In the interview conducted with me with me I invariably gave a full answer to their questions.

However, when the programme was broadcast snide editing had reduced my answers to fit the intention of the programme, which was to be a vicious crucifixion of Charlie, Eddie Richardson and me.

Snide Editing

It reeked of a conspiracy that was designed to avoid the exposure of yet another major miscarriage of justice.

For instance in the aired programme 'Backstabber' Oxley asked me if the allegations that Frank Prater, Benny Coulston and Jimmy Taggart had claimed that I inflicted upon Coulston and Taggart were true? My edited reply was: "I wish I 'ad've."

Whereas the correct full answer as I remember it was. "I wish I 'ad've because it would have made it easier to do 20 years in prison knowing that I had been guilty of GBH on them."

Prater, Coulston, and Taggart were all serial fraudsters who have the ability to tell lies as easy as you and I use a tissue to wipe our nose. They are also are notorious police informers.

Fraudsters are by definition liars, and serial fraudsters are repetitive liars.

Doctor Who?

In the style of the 'Torture Trial' the programme 'Real Crime - The Gang The Krays Feared' failed to produce one respected person who actually saw the alleged assaults.

Nor did Oxley produce any original evidence to negate the description of the evidence against the defendants in the outrageous 'Torture Trial' as being lies.

However, a doctor did appear in the Oxley programme, a Michael Micaleff who gave a graphic account of the injuries for which he allegedly treated Taggart.

The dialogue of Dr Michael Micaleff was given with expressions of emotion, and at one stage it could be said that it appeared that he was about to shed tears.

No doubt Dr. Michael Micaleff will be pleased to learn that he gives the impression that he is aged about 65 years. To say he looked 70 years may be unkind.

I believe there is a question mark over this doctor, and if anyone has any information on him I would be very grateful if they would send it to me.

This is a transcript of DR. MICHAEL MICALEFF:

"I was shocked when I saw him, he reminded me of an experience during the war when a fighter pilot a German fighter pilot came down in flames.

He was fried alive, and that stuck with me for the rest of my life and he (presumably Taggart) reminded me straight away of that German pilot.

His ears right up, his face all puffed up. He had been very badly beaten up.

His back was all lashes and stripes.

Terrible."

I would welcome answers to the following questions:

Q: The war with Germany ended 56 years ago.

Presuming that Dr. Micaleff was 30 years of age. at that time, he would today be 86 years of age.

30 years would be a reasonable low age for a General Practitioner of that period.

Is Dr. Micaleff 86 years of age, or close to that age?

Q: How did the German pilot 'come down in flames'?

There is no mention of the pilot being trapped in his plane, so presumably it was by parachute.

This would be remarkable because would not the flames have made the parachute ineffective?

Q: The description of the facial injuries of Taggart would fit a person involved in a bar-room brawl or anyone that had suffered facial injuries from a fist or blunt instrument.

Blows to the face from a fist or blunt instrument will cause contusions, bleeding and swelling.

Serious burn injuries from flames cause very different type of injuries, and are treated very differently. That is why there are Special Burns units in specialised hospitals.

Heat and/or flames burn away the skin, therefore is it not right that anyone 'fried alive' will not have skin on his face or body that was swollen, or 'eyes that were puffed up', but instead the skin would have been burnt away?

Q: My Oxford Concise dictionary gives the meaning of 'lash' as: Stroke with thong, whip, etc.; flexible part of whip (the lash, punishment or flogging).

There has never been a suggestion that a whip was ever used by anyone in the 'Torture Trial' yet do not the descriptions of the alleged injuries on the body of Taggart as described by Dr, Micaleff, 'lashes and stripes', indicate that they were caused by a whip or whips rather than a blunt instrument?

Q: Did Dr. Micaleff refer Taggart to a hospital?

If so what is the name of the hospital, and who was the doctor that took charge of Taggart in the hospital, and to whom, presumably, Dr. Micaleff gave access to the notes he had made at that time?

If Taggart was not referred to a hospital by Dr. Micaleff why was he not referred?

Because he was so appalled, and his emotional involvement as witnessed in the Oxley programme, by the injuries to Taggart no doubt Dr. Micaleff has kept the records he made at the time he treated Taggart, and they are available for inspection by another member of the medical profession, or the General Medical Council?

Serious head injuries are always considered by members of the medical profession to be dangerous, and referral to a hospital is considered to be mandatory.

For a GP to take it upon himself to restrict the treatment of a patient suffering from extensive head injuries to his own seriously limited resources would be of great concern to the General Medical Council.

The Blanc Mange 'Hard Man'

Albert Donoghue is the former 'gofer' of Ronnie and Reggie Kray who was one of the first of many to shoot his hand up when Chief Superintendent 'Nipper' Read asked which of the Kray firm wanted to turn Queen's Evidence.

He is referred to in the media as the Krays 'hard man'. If he was 'hard' then blanc mange is a substitute for cement.

Donoghue earned a living of sorts with the Kray Twins, and says that when he visited South London in the 1960's he always went in a hired car with a gun 'hidden' in the dashboard compartment as a ready made 'defence' that the car was not his if he was stopped while driving, and 'turned over' by the police.

Someone should tell him that in those days hire car firms, especially those that rented out Jaguar cars, always cleaned the car inside and out, and checked it over before allowing it to be rented.
So if Donoghue is telling the truth who would he have blamed for the gun being in the car?

This was in the period of the police 'verbals'. Do you think for one minute that the 'Old Bill' would not have had their own back and sworn his life away if they thought he was insulting them by having such a juvenile 'defence' to being in the possession of a gun?

If a person was so concerned for his safety in 'Indian' territory, as Donoghue described South London, and his spine was made of blanc mange, is it likely he would travel alone?

The shots of Donoghue in the Jaguar looked familiar and I am wondering if it was taken from another documentary.

He said on the Real Crime episode 'The Gang The Krays Feared' that he knew about the torture before the 'Torture Trial'. Strange that his bosses Ronnie and Reggie did not know about the torture and the 'mock trials', nor was it known to any other respected member of the underworld.

If a person with the weak principals of Donoghue knew about it the presumably others knew, therefore, how long do you think it would have been before the informer's direct line to Scotland Yard, or the local 'nick', would have been red hot?

He also said that Ronnie Kray referred to me in heavy derogatory terms. If this had been true then the enemies of Ronnie, and he had his full share, would have been eagerly queuing up to tell me. Ronnie and Reggie would have been fully aware of this, and they would have been fully aware that I would not have allowed a bad insult to go unchallenged.

Neither Ronnie nor Reggie had any cause to insult me, and likewise I had no reason to insult them. We never had a cross word, and when I left prison after serving seven years for attacking Jack Spot they were helpful to me.

Naturally, I appreciated this.

I am also able to tell you that the wit of the real people that make up the underworld is wicked. If it was known that we were indulging in childish fancy dress courtroom scenes, and were 'torturers'. Friends would have been constantly reminded of it and one of us, at least, would have been nicknamed, The Marquis - after the Marquis of Sade.

Ronnie Kray wasn't spared, and he was given the nickname of 'The Colonel' because of the commanding officer manner he sometimes adopted. When Ronnie was reminded of the nickname he would smile.

The media would also have had a field day immediately we were arrested, and the name the 'Torture Mob' would have preceded the 'Torture Trial'.

The Donoghue nonsense is about as truthful as other lies.

Basil Fawlty Was Wise

In his attempt at TV documentary making 'Backstabber' Oxley devised supposedly dramatic, pathetic is the more correct description, reconstructions. Basil Fawlty was wise to stay away.

In one scene an electric fire is switched on, and is threateningly prepared for use as a branding iron of sorts.

However, instead of the red glowing electric fire being used on the clothed alleged victim we suddenly saw the victim's naked body used as an ashtray on which cigars were squashed out on his body.

Oh well, I had to be not guilty of that alleged assault because I have never smoked.

Cigars were not popular with Charlie, and the other alleged torturers. They did not smoke Havana's so maybe Sir Winston Churchill and members of his club were the villains.

The one villain that did smoke Havana's, paid for with other people's money, was Jack Duval an ace conman, but according to the programme makers he wasn't there.

It would have got a louder laugh if the menacing electric fire had switched from being a weapon of torture, and was used to make a slice of toast.

Get The Richardson's and Fraser!

According to Taggart he went to that crooked Hertfordshire Assistant Chief Constable Gerald McArthur because he was the only policeman he knew who was 'straight'.

"All the Metropolitan policemen were bent", said Taggart

In 'The Gang The Krays Feared' 'Backstabber' Oxley allowed the claim by Taggart to go unchallenged that ACC McArthur was the 'only honest policeman'.

The reality is that ACC McArthur was corrupt. The fact that he became close to Taggart speaks for itself. Today this type of policeman and criminal relationship is forbidden.

I would now like to ask you another serious question: Do you think that the crooked Metropolitan police officers of the highest rank would have allowed a 'foreign' police officer, especially an honest one, to come onto their 'patch', and take over a high profile case when the informant was alleging that they were all crooked?

Either we use adult intelligence to answer that question or forget it and play snakes and ladders.

There were most certainly Metropolitan police officer of the highest rank that were crooked, and the reason they did not object to McArthur was because he was 'one of their own'.

There is no doubt that had the police led by McArthur thought they could have secured convictions against us for 'scrumping' then they would have charged us. They were ordered to get us, and it became a no holds barred persecution, and a complete abuse of the Justice system.

I am in no position to complain about unlawful methods, but I am entitled to indict those who want to pretend that because the unlawful methods were carried out in the name of Justice that they were just.

The Games Children Play

Charlie Richardson was a no nonsense millionaire businessman, and the people working for him were all serious people. They had to be to retain their jobs.

I was a bodyguard to Billy Hill, the king of the underworld, many of you will have seen photographs of the fearless George Cornell who was his own man, Jimmy Moody, another proven seriously hard man who would never allow anyone to give him childish orders, and other strong-minded people, therefore do you honestly believe that we would have indulged in childish charades and dress up as Old Bailey lawyers, with Charlie resplendent in wig and robes as the Judge as it was portrayed the programme.

Anyone that knew Billy Hill will tell you that he was a very shrewd and earnest man. Is it conceivable that he would have allowed me, his top man, to behave in the manner described by the liars without advising me how foolish, and degrading, I was behaving?

I respected Billy Hill, and any hint of that nature I would have taken to heart, and acted upon immediately

On a matter of principle anyone that knows me would know that I would not be a party to a debased courtroom charade, nor for that matter would Charlie Richardson and the others. We were not actors or posers.

We were, and still are, serious people on serious matters.

If some mysterious reason you believe it was possible we did play silly games then how come that when our homes and business premises were thoroughly searched following the without warning events that took place at Mr. Smith's night club and casino when we were ambushed by rivals; that when Charlie Richardson and others were arrested in a top secret police manoeuvre that resulted in raids, and similar searches on their homes, and business premises, in the early hours of the morning, that no costumes, lawyers and Judges horse hair wigs or other court room paraphernalia were found?

The Fictional 'Black Box'

To make the torture allegations have credibility it was necessary for the prosecution to have a main torture weapon.

Physical body damage leaves scars, and if there were none how could the torture allegations be sustained?'

The only honest' policeman ACC Gerald McArthur found the answer, and invented a black box that when electrodes were attached to a human body and the 'on' switch activated, powerful electrical shocks caused excruciating pain.

In the 'Torture Trial' and in 'The Gang The Krays Feared' TV programme the 'black box' became the main torture weapon, and the main exhibit in the trial.

Except amateur documentary maker Oxley changed the colour and it became a brown box. This was another condemning exposure of the seriously flawed research he had conducted.

When the 'black box' was produced during the course of the trial the six defendants had their first glimpse of the alleged torture weapon, and we were all flabbergasted.

The defendants immediately denied to their defence Counsel any knowledge whatsoever of the 'black box'.

It should have been damning evidence except the 'black box' was not in court as a result of being discovered in the possession of any of the defendants or at premises used by them, but instead it was a replica of the alleged 'black box' and until it was produced in the courtroom no one had seen it before.

The police had to admit that despite the closest of searches a 'black box' that could be used to torture people had never been found.

How then is possible to have a replica of anything of which there is no tangible proof of the existence of an original other than descriptions by fraudsters?

Please read the foregoing paragraphs very carefully.

However, it does not end there. My very astute solicitor Mr. James Fellowes earned his money when he arranged for the replica 'black box' to be examined by an eminent scientist.

The evidence of this scientist was that this type of 'black box' was only capable of giving a, "Tickling sensation."

If it had not been so serious it was laughable.

Despite all of this, the Old Bailey trial Judge Frederick Lawton QC allowed the fraudulent 'black box' to become an exhibit.

So we had in court for all to see, and this includes the jury, the main 'torture weapon' the ominous 'black box' that had never been found, and was incapable of causing torture.

Lawton - The Impostor Judge

This is just one reason why I describe Judge Frederick Lawton, a one-time Parliamentary candidate for the British fascist party as a thorough disgrace to his office, and as a defender of justice he was a complete impostor.

I also proved in open court that he was a liar, and that he was prepared to pervert the course of justice to serve his masters, The Establishment.

Today the Crown Prosecution Service would have refused to be responsible for presenting the 'Torture Trial' case in court, and we would not have been charged.

In the 1960's it was very different. The top criminal lawyers were: Victor Durand QC, Jeremy Hutchison QC, Robin Simpson QC, and James Burge QC. They were all from the same chambers. None would accept the brief to defend anyone charged in the 'Torture Trial'.

Victor Durand QC did accept the brief for the affray charge resulting from the Mr. Smith's events, and was brilliant.

He was a friend of Charlie Richardson. Yet when he was asked to represent Charlie at the 'Torture Trial' he very reluctantly returned the brief, and no other leading Counsel was available from his chambers.

The order had gone out from above, and no other recognised top criminal Counsel would accept the brief for any one of the 'Torture Trial defendants.

Leading for the prosecution was Sebag Shaw QC, a top criminal barrister who was usually too expensive for prosecution cases, the chief prosecuting Counsel in the Country, Frank Cussens, and James Crespi who later became the chief prosecuting Counsel.

Added to these three redoubtable lawyers was a battery of behind the scenes lawyers from the office of the Director of Prosecutions. No expense was spared.

By comparison our team was similar to England playing in the World Cup final, and only being allowed to choose players from the third or fourth divisions.

The one exception who refused to be intimidated, and accepted the brief was John Platt-Mills QC. The pity was that Mr. Platt-Mills was well past his best.

Probably this was reason that he was allowed to accept the brief.

Twenty years earlier he would have been a great asset because he was courageous, and in no way would he have allowed Judge Frederick Lawton QC a free reign.

Unfortunately age had taken its toll. Nevertheless, we respected him for taking the brief.

The only QC that would accept the brief to represent Charlie was a Counsel who had no reputation as a criminal lawyer, and did not even specialise in criminal law. He was slightly better than useless, although Charlie would disagree with this opinion and consider it flatters his defence Counsel.

My QC was Charles Lawson a decent man, and genuine, but he was intimidated by Judge Frederick Lawson QC.

Much play was made of the term: 'The Richardson Gang'. Five people were convicted in the 'Torture Trial'. Jimmy Moody was acquitted, and George Cornell was never charged.

Two of the five defendants worked for Charlie in his business, and one had been with Charlie since he left school.

Five people could hardly qualify as a Mafia style gang.

Questions That Need Answers

A lot of fuss has been made of the question put to me by Oxley that I have said in court that I was not guilty when I was guilty. I agreed that I had done this.

Oxley then went on to ask me why I should now be believed.

By now I was beginning to realise that Oxley was a 'backstabber' ad so I replied, "I don't care if you believe me or not." I stand by that statement.

I will go further than that and challenge Oxley, or any other, to show an instance where I have lied to him on any matter relating to the 'Torture Trial', or for that matter on any other subject.

Why did not Oxley ask the same question of the liars Prater, Bradbury, Taggart, Coulston and Donoghue who have also pleaded not guilty in a courtroom when they were guilty and what were their answers, and why should we believe them now?

They are proven liars, and even in the 'Backstabber' Oxley programme there is undeniable evidence that they told lies.

Here are some examples:

We used the Astor Club in London because the prices were reasonable, and it was good value for money. We also had our fruit machines in the club.

Bradbury said that Jack Duvall would think of nothing of spending 5,000 in one night at the Astor Club.

5,000 in the early 1960's would today be equivalent to at least 50,000. Ask yourself this question: Do you believe that you could spend on a fairly regular basis 50,000 per night in a non-gambling nightclub?

Benny Coulston said that he was hit with logs of wood (have you ever heard of a log of wood being used as a cosh), and a steel bar across the eyes.

He also said that I used a pair of pliers to pull-out his teeth, and broke two teeth and severely injured his gums.

Please ask your dentist if this could be accomplished without causing dreadful damage to the whole of the mouth, lips and face - that's if it is possible to extract teeth from a desperately struggling man who is bigger than me in size and build- without the use of anaesthetic?

Why did the police 'lose' dental x-rays put In their care, and were never to be found?

Is it believable that a man entering hospital with such grievous injuries inflicted upon him did not cause the hospital to immediately alert the police?

What explanation did Coulston give to the hospital to explain his injuries?

Benny Coulston said that he had run out of a hospital dressed only in his under- pants and ran/walked for two miles on a freezing cold snow covered terrain.

Would a hospitalised man suffering from grievous injuries attempt this in broad daylight when he only had to ask the hospital to call the police, and where was he headed?

If Taggart was in such a diabolical state of injury how was he able to wipe away the alleged 'bloody mess' from the walls and the floor using only his underpants, as he said on the programme?

Donoghue said that the claim that George Cornell called Ronnie Kray a 'fat poof' was a myth, and it never happened.

Bradbury contradicted this and said that at the Astor Club George called Ronnie a fat poof, and it took Charlie Richardson to hold him back, and Reggie had to hold back Ronnie.

In a gauche reconstruction we were shown Prater saying that Charlie Richardson instructed him to check a small black book (note the ominous colour) with entries in figures made in it to see if it showed that Taggart had 3,000 in credit.

Before this sham scene it had been admitted in the programme that Charlie Richardson was a millionaire businessman with diverse business interests. To reach this advanced business state Charlie had to learn how to read complicated company balance sheets.

Therefore do you believe that Charlie needed Prater to tell him if there was 3,000 available in what I presume was meant to be a bank deposit book?

The Questions Not Asked

Taggart said that he went to Assistant Chief Constable McArthur because all Metropolitan police officers were crooked.

Does this mean that he knew that Chief Superintendent John Cummings who was based in South London, and who was on the programme was also bent?

Why didn't Oxley ask C/Supt. Cummings if he was a corrupt policeman, and did not Mr. Cummings know that all Metropolitan police officers were bent as claimed by Taggart?

The reason he did not ask C/Supt. Cummings that question because the answer would have exposed Taggart as a liar.

It is true that there were Metropolitan policemen who were crooked, but to suggest that everyone was corrupt is untrue.

My only professional knowledge of C/Supt. Cummings was that he was the senior officer that first investigated the shooting at Mr. Smith's nightclub and casino.

According to the information I received his superiors at Scotland Yard had told him that he had to bend the rules, and to make sure that we were jailed. To his credit Cummings is alleged to have said if that was what they wanted then they would have to send someone down from the Yard to do their dirty work.

They duly sent the notorious Chief Superintendent Tom Butler who planted evidence in The Great Train Robbery.

If C/Supt. Cummings refused to go crooked then it has to be respected.

I believe it is true.

If it wasn't true why was the henchman Butler sent down to take over the case.

Butler charged me with the murder of Dickie Hart who was shot in Mr. Smith's with his own gun. There was no evidence against me, but C/Supt. Butler implicitly followed his orders, and charged me with the murder.

A jury different to the 'Torture Trial' jury acquitted me.

The Truth Regarding Mr Smith's

I suppose I am entitled to be peeved at the programme 'Real Crime, The Gang The Krays Feared' because on one hand it referred to me as Charlie Richardson's fierce enforcer, and yet when two people were alleged on Charlie's instruction to be murdered another person was employed to carry out the assignments.

Thank goodness it was just nasty fantasy. I haven't been out of work since I was a kid or in prison.

On a serious note I have to ask you to consider that with Charlie Richardson established as a very shrewd operator would he have bypassed me his closest friend, George Cornell or Jimmy Moody all of whom were intensely loyal and totally reliable, but instead he would pay a miserly 200 each to two people to commit murder.

If Charlie was nothing else he was very generous. What sort of hit man would you get for a fee of 200?

Again it is arrant nonsense.

The fact that convicted murderer John Bradbury who was sentenced to death, but reprieved, for murdering a partner of Charlie, and of whom Charlie was fond, was on the programme is an example of the deep depth of the sewer that Oxley was prepared to wallow in.

Oxley is also a proven liar. He said there was a shoot-out at Mr. Smith's. There was no such thing.

The other side were prepared. They had guns and used them. We had no weapons. We were only in the club to celebrate a business arrangement that we were asked to agree to by the club owners.

There was no thought on our part of a row occurring, and that is why were totally unprepared.

Again, flawed research by Oxley.

This is another occasion when I ask you to use your commonsense, is it likely that we would on the day that we had entered into a business arrangement with the owners to have our fruit machines in the best night club and casino in South London, that we would use it as the venue for a serious row that was certain to damage the expensive furnishings in the club and casino, and cause it to be closed down for extensive refurbishing when we had the choice of dozens of other venues?

Even more importantly it would also place in danger the licence for the club, and the club could have been closed.

I may have been certified to get out of prison but I was never that mad.

Facts Versus Lies

Every one of my statements in this article is FACT!

Let Oxley, or any other disprove the events described herein, and I will put their full version unedited, always providing it is not libellous, on this web site.

Why did not Oxley interview any one of the proprietors of the clubs where we had agreed with them to site our fruit machines and juke boxes?

Probably the reason is that NOT ONE of these club owners made a complaint against the company or us. In fact a number offered to attend court and give evidence of the good service the jukebox and fruit machine company gave them.

We could not call them because the police had made no complaint against the company.

If we were terrorising clubs owners how come there wasn't ONE complaint from a club owner?

In the newspaper reviews on Real Crime -The Gang The Krays Feared none of the critics, unfortunately, exposed the truth.

'The Tortured Account'

However by way of consolation the national newspapers spoke with one voice on the inadequacies of "This Tortured Account" the accurate headline used for the review by Peter Paterson of the Daily Mail.

Quite rightly Mr. Paterson was outspoken, and asked why did Peter Oxley shy away from denouncing crooked 'coppers' by name?

The story of a crook (Taggart) choosing to complain of torture by the Richardson's to 'the only honest detective he knew" also, quite rightly, failed to impress the Daily Mail critic."

The review goes on to describe the programme as tedious viewing.

It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I have a gut feeling that Peter Paterson was not fooled.

The national broadsheets critics treated the programme with facetious contempt, and they were correct to do so.

One critic said it was, "A transparently hypocritical crusade against violence turned into entertainment."

I asked a friend of mine, who is an experienced filmmaker for his opinion on the programme.

His view is: "It was patently obvious that the makers were significantly short of worthwhile material, and had to resort to the tedious over-use of reconstructed scenes that lacked conviction.

The opening scene taken from the England 1966 World cup triumph was completely redundant in the way it was used.

The general appearance of the programme indicated that they had sold the idea to ITV on the basis of a synopsis without detail, but after they had spent part of the fee they had to deliver something hence the cobbled version that appeared on the TV screen.

A good documentary maker would have realised that the winning story lay in the truth, and not with the fantasy.

I am unable to understand how a documentary maker of such a serious subject could be content with the flawed evidence of a ragbag of people, and allow his reputation to depend such seriously flawed testimony. Either he is very naive, inexperienced or had no alternative. May be all three are applicable."

Upon that judgement I will rest my case. Oh, dear I will I have to change that sentence otherwise Oxley will believe it is dialogue I have taken from the make-believe, that never happened, courtroom scenes.

So I will end with: I have made my point. I now await the response from Oxley, and any other, to prove that my claim is not a truthful one.

Please see Viewpoints: The Injustice of Alleged Justice Tuesday August 24th 2001. Judges, Justice And The Judicial System Saturday February 17th 2001.

back