Page 278 - tmp

From: JOSEPHINE WARD [josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com]
Sent: 24 October 2013 16:20
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re: Simon Case
Lorraine

The loser's statement is not being disputed. He said he was the owner he reported the trailer as being
stolen from the location that Simon collected the trailer from. The CCTV will not change the case in
any way either as Simon acepts that he collected the trailer and removed the trailer. The issue in the
case is whether Simon bought the trailer in good faith. The jury will consider the price paid, where
the contract was conducted and also the circumstances. They will undoubtedly question our inability
to provide any defence witnesses to corroborate Simon's version of events. With regards to the trial
lasting two days I do not have any control over the trial length.

Simon gives his version of events and the jury either believe him or they do not. The CCTV evidence
does not add to the case in any way. Simon accepted in his interview collecting the trailer so I am not
sure how the CCTV alters this.

With regards to the case being in the Crown Court this was Simon's choice. The issue is when, where
and what Simon said to satisy himself that the person selling the trailer was the true owner. This is a
question of fact.

I hope that this clarifes the position.

Regards

Josephine

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Hi Josey

I just got a call from Simon and it seems that the prosecution have seemed to not have the CCTV the judge
has also allowed this to go on without it and the prosecution not saying what happened correctly at all in how it
was meant to have happened and without the CCTV to prove it how can Simon prove that they are saying is
wrong?

Also there is no one from there side that has tuned up they are just using there statements. And also there
saying this is a 2 day trial so want Simon back there tomorrow again this is a lot of money to get up there and
back.

Lorraine

256