Page 673 - tmp
P. 673

say is that my review of the evidence will be objective
                                   and governed by the information available to me.

                                   If you’ve any questions for me at this stage, as ever,
                                   please do put them to me.

                                   Kind regards

                                   Jamie Newman | Serious Misconduct Investigation Unit
                                   (SMIU) | Directorate of Professional Standards |
                                   MetPhone 786675 | Telephone 0207 161 6675  | Email
                                   Jamie.newman@met.pnn.police.uk
                                   Address Empress State Building, 22nd Floor, Lillie Road,
                                   London, SW6 1TR
                                   'Setting the bar and upholding standards without fear
                                   or favour’

                                   From: Lorraine Cordell
                                   [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
                                   Sent: 07 August 2017 17:31
                                   To: Newman Jamie M ‐ HQ Directorate of Professional
                                   Standards <Jamie.Newman@met.pnn.police.uk>
                                   Subject: RE: Our meeting today.

                                   Dear Jamie

                                   Thank you for the update reply.

                                   Due to never seeing PC G statement written after
                                   what happened on the day, and never having access
                                   to any documents since, I rely on what was said in
                                   court from PC G and also the 1st report after the 1st
                                   investigation that the DPS did, which you are now
                                   redoing due to what the IPCC said.

                                   PC G stated there was no notebook in court; he
                                   stated Mr Cordell was arrested due to him not giving
                                   his details so they could be confirmed he stated Mr
                                   Cordell had said he was homeless. But Mr Cordell
                                   knew there was a notebook he saw PC G writing in
                                   it on the day he was arrested, and knew he had
                                   given his details as if he had not how would PC G
                                   have been able to speak to the insurance
                                   companies.

                                   In the Crown Court Appeal in went a lot deeper my
                                   son had a barrister and he knew what to ask.

                                   When PC G got into trouble after the audio tapes
                                   was played and the judge got really upset due to
                                   knowing that PC G had not told the truth the Judge
                                   asked for all documents the police office had replied
                                   on in this case. PC G passed a statement to the
                                   judge he had in his hand that he had been using in
                                   court. The judge was not happy with the statement
                                   as there was no date and timed marked, PC G said
                                   to the Judge that the statement he was using was a
                                   copy, it was my son barrister said there seemed to

                                                                3651
   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678