122903
CAMPAIGN MANAGERS STATEMENT
I met Chris Nudds a long time ago when I arranged to do some business with him.
My first impression of him was that he was a well presented, charming and likeable guy. He was very knowledgeable in the business in which we were dealing and came across to me as honest and trustworthy. I knew at that time that we would be able to do business together and I looked forward to doing business with him in the future. We struck a deal, but the deal we struck meant Chris did not have quite enough money on him and was short of £150. He promised to either bring to me or send to me, this money within the next few days. I had no hesitation in trusting him and in fact the owed amount was received, by cheque, (which cleared with no problems), a few days later. (When I was interviewed by the police sometime later, with reference to this case, when relating this story to DC O'Hanlon, and speaking of the money owed, he laughed and said "I bet you didn't get it". It gave me a great deal of pleasure to be able to tell him, that, I had in fact, received it as arranged).
Sometime after our business meeting I heard that Chris had got caught up in the disappearance of Fred Moss. I decided to write to his parents and see if there was anything that I could do to help. Having had a member of my family end up in prison some years ago I know at times like these it is good to have some sort of support. Shortly after that I wrote to Chris and arranged to go to see him. I am a very straightforward kind of person, I prefer to take life's problems head on and deal with whatever life throws at me so I do not 'beat around the bush' if I need to know something. My first visit to see Chris in prison, was a most daunting experience as I had not had to do a prison visit in many years and the security procedures were much tighter than years ago. I had to go through at least six barred gates, have my photograph and thumb print taken. I had to stand and be sniffed by sniffer dogs, obviously looking for drugs. I also had to remove my coat, (and any hats, gloves or other outdoor clothing), any jewellery I was wearing and the only thing I was allowed to take in with me was a small amount of cash, with which to buy myself and the person I was visiting some refreshments.
When I finally got to Chris, I did feel very awkward, to think that the person who I had envisaged doing business with for many years to come had ended up in this predicament. As I had only met Chris twice before it does have to be said, that at this time I had no idea whether Chris was involved with Fred Moss's disappearance or not. I went to visit him with a completely open mind. Shortly after the start of our visit, after exchanging a few pleasantries I asked Chris, most bluntly, if he had, in fact, killed Fred Moss. His reply, without hesitation was "No, I have not". He was quite shocked that I could ask in so blunt a manner, the question, to which other people may have wanted the answer to but would not or could not ask. He said " Do you know, that apart from the police, you are the only person who had actually asked me that question". I knew then, as I know now, that Chris did not kill Fred Moss. I have exchanged many letters with him, I have had many visits with him and have been through some very tough times with him. I have worked alongside both his legal teams, with his solicitors and his barristers. I have trawled through sixteen boxes of case notes consisting of over 75 large lever arch files, reading each and every page. I have read witness statements, police notes, forensic reports, psychiatric reports, prosecution statements and Chris's proofs of evidence to name just a few. I have discussed his case with his defence teams, with celebrities, with his friends, his family and with journalists and throughout have heard nothing which would make me want to change my mind.
I decided to start this campaign to try and overturn this miscarriage of justice or to, at the very least, secure Chris a re-trial, in which all the information which was gathered, but which much of was not used, can be put to the jury, because it is my opinion, and that of many others, that in February 2006 a great deal of information was kept from the jury and Chris did not get a fair trial.
It was obvious from the beginning of the legal proceeding and court appearances that HH Judge Charles Wide had taken an instant dislike to Chris, at every stage of the way he made it as difficult as possible for Chris. He refused to allow any of the court appearances to be done by video link, even if these appearances were to have only been for a matter of minutes, he insisted that Chris be produced, causing him to be transported from prison to court, each and every time, at an enormous cost to the tax payer. He caused Chris to be taken from one prison to another with no possessions, other than the clothes that he stood up in, and which he was to remain in for over two weeks, due to what was eventually discovered to be 'a slip of a pen', a judges pen, no less. I have documents stating various requests were made of Judge Wide from Chris's legal team, most of which were ignored, some of which were complied with, eventually. Comments of 'maybe he (Judge Wide) will change his mind', abound throughout the case notes.
There were various items of information kept from the jury, including of course, Darren Horner's criminal record, current indictment and medical records which show that he had mental health problems due to prolonged drug abuse. There was also a PII, (which is a Public Information Immunity certificate) attached to this case. This is something which the police know all about, the Crown Prosecution know all about and the judge know all about. The only people not to know what it is about, is the people who really should know what it is about and that is Chris and his defence team. A PII is about something which, is said, needs to be kept from the public for reasons best known to the authorities. This should concern each and every person reading this statement, because it is my opinion that absolutely everything should be declared to a jury when a persons life or freedom is at stake and no 'secrets' whatsoever should be allowed regardless of what they are about. When it comes to depriving anyone of their freedom, no matter for how long, there should be nothing kept from their legal team and to allow something to be kept from them under the guise of Public Information Immunity smacks of 'big brother' tactics.
You should now be asking yourself, what if anything, should the public be immune from knowing, maybe it is police tactics, with regard to how they obtain certain pieces of evidence, guaranteed to ensure someone loses their freedom. Regardless of the facts of this case, this is something each and every one of us should be concerned about.
There has been, recently, in the news, stories about prison cells, prison domestic visits and legal visits being bugged. Whilst, I suppose in some circumstances it is acceptable for domestic visits to be bugged, but only just acceptable, within the society we now live, visitors should always be told that this is taking place. (At the present time, they are not).
We should all, however, fight the injustice of prison cells being bugged. Imagine, if I may put it so bluntly, not even being able to go to the toilet without being listened to by some prison officer somewhere! We should all write to our MP's and request a Government Enquiry into the bugging that goes on within the prison system.
The bugging of legal visits is a completely different scenario. This is a breach of the Human Rights Act, where it is said that legal visits should be kept completely private between a solicitor and his client. This should concern each and every one of us and must not be allowed to continue.
There were times when, during legal visits, Chris and his solicitor had to exchange information by writing notes to each other. Chris was told by a prison officer, (someone who did not agree that legal visits should be bugged), that they were being bugged and to be aware of the fact. Unfortunately, this officer will not come forward with this information because he is obviously aware that his job would be a stake.
Chris's former solicitor agreed that his visits were being bugged but knew there was no way it could be proven, without someone such as this officer coming forward.
For some reason there were many things not put before the court by Chris's legal team. There were many points which the prosecution put before the court, including much of the forensic evidence, that were not challenged by Chris's defence team. We have to ask why?
Was it that his defence team felt their hands were tied, especially given that many things were not to be disclosed, things such as the PII and a text message to the judge telling of Horner's involvement and his reward for assisting the police. Did they think that no matter what they did they would make no headway in this case so didn't really try. Is this the sad state of our judicial system and is this why so many miscarriages of justice are taking place?
Why was the fact that Chris was abducted not looked into more?
To allow two serving police officers to sit idly by and watch Chris be abducted from his vehicle surely cannot be right. Was any thought given by them to the fact that the travellers might actually murder Chris or was there an agreement between these police officers and the travellers that the travellers should be allowed to abduct Chris, beat him up, frighten him half to death by firing a gun around his head and forcing him to start digging his own grave as long as they stopped short of actually killing him.
Was it police policy to actually sit in their own vehicle and watch whilst the travellers returned Chris to his vehicle and then proceed to search it, removing various objects from it including Chris's mobile phone, which they then examined, taking from it some of Chris's contact numbers, before handing it in to the police.
Was this the way police hoped to get the information they wanted?
Were these two inexperienced officers who sat back and watched what they should have considered a crime scene being contaminated? No, they were two highly experienced detectives who should have known better. It has to then be asked, why was any so called evidence which was recovered from Chris's vehicle allowed to be introduced into court, knowing full well that it may well have been contaminated evidence.
Albeit, these two officers were formally reprimanded for their actions, with copies of this documentation being lodged with Chris's defence team, no action whatsoever was taken against any of the travellers involved in this abduction or assault.
Further items which should be looked at again include two of the items said to have Fred Moss's DNA on, the knife, and the hacksaw.
The area in which these were found was a compound where Chris kept his dogs. Whilst Chris was in the process of being abducted this compound was broken into. This was reported to the police and yet nothing was done about it. It does, I am sure, raise a question as to whether any of these items could have been planted, especially as one of these items was seized by police during a search of Chris's premises only after the so called confession story from Darren Horner.
Also requiring investigating would be the reliability of the traveller statements, considering how many of these travellers had criminal records and some of the comments made by the travellers including a cousin, who said "we don't care if he's dead, we just want to know where he's at" and his brother Len saying, "Damn, damn, damn, it should have been me".
There were many sightings of Fred Moss's van, in various locations, during these days after his 'disappearance', there were many reported sightings of him, himself. Were each and everyone properly checked out?
There were many reports of suspicious persons and vehicles, again, in various locations, during the days after Fred Moss's disappearance. How thoroughly were these investigated?
The telephone evidence which was made much of during Chris's trial, apparently put him in the area where Fred Moss was alleged to have gone missing from. Had Chris's phone information been investigated from the weeks before Fred Moss's disappearance it would have also put him in this area as this was the area in which he was regularly employed.
Should another phone which belonged to Chris and previously seized by the police have been investigated it would have also shown that Chris and Fred Moss regularly contacted each other by phone and had been friends for quite a long period of time.
There are many reports on the internet about missing travellers, perhaps this was a line of enquiry that should have been followed through along with a deeper investigation into a travellers lifestyle.
There have been comments made that Fred Moss mentioned to Chris a girl called Rita, apparently no investigation was ever made into who Rita might have been and what connection, if any, she might have had to Fred Moss. It has been said that she may have been a prostitute working in Harlow. Surely she could not have been that difficult to find. Maybe someone knows who she is and can come forward with some information.
Why, when commissioning a physiatrist report did Chris's defence team decide not to use the report in court just because where it stated that the physiatrist said she would be somewhat surprised if Chris had spoken to someone he hardly knew, in the manner to which Darren Horner suggested, she used the word 'somewhat', instead of 'very'. Surely a very silly reason not to use this physiatrist report in court when it would have said to the jury that Chris was not the kind of person to go talking, quite candidly, to someone he did not know.
There are many more instances which I could add to this statement which would show to each and everyone of you reading this that Chris Nudds did not get a fair trial and his conviction should be quashed. The very least he should get is permission to appeal, followed by an appeal, followed by a retrial. Each and every bit of evidence, each and every witness statement and each and every expert witness statement should be gone over again. As you can see there are still many questions which still require answering in this case. Chris's new defence team should be given the opportunity to go through this case again and be given the opportunity to challenge many of the things which his first defence team did not bother to challenge. Chris should be given a fair trial, which is the right of every human being accused of a crime.
Until this happens, I along with the rest of his team will continue to support him, write to him and fight for him.