Page 537 - 2. 2013 New 26-05-21 No Table

space and it does seem very funny that they would move items that were ordered to sell at one of his
large shops?
3. There has never been a list of items that Mr petal said was taken in May just an invoice so is Mr
Petal saying that all the items on the list was taken at the party in May 2013
4. So far, we do not even know the list of items that were taken in Feb 2013, and seeing at Mr petal
seems to be using the same invoice for both dates there should be 2 lists of items that were taken
5. what was the cost of the damage to the building in Feb 2013 as it seems from the emails Mr Petal
has listed from his insurance, they have put both claims into one which in fact would then go over to
the date Simon hired his sound system out in May 20131202
6. Why did the insurance company not pay the Feb 2013 claim out till after the claim in May 2013?
Why did they only pay out after the May 2013 claim is it due that someone was arrested, and they
could put both claims over to the court case of Simon. As if you look at the dates of the insurance part
it does not make any sense as the last date shows April 2013 yet it says they are paying out both
claims, how could they pay out both claims when the party in May had not even happened yet. Or is it
the case there was a next party after Feb 2013 and before May 2013.
7. What was the costs of damage to the building in Feb 2013 and the value of the items taken.
8. What was the damage to the building in May 2013 and the value of the items taken. In short how
could the property have been stolen in May 2013 if it had already been stolen in Feb 2013 as
the invoice is the same?
Also, the damage to the building from Feb 2013 seems to have been added to the costs to the May
2013 but yet Simon has not been charged with the party in Feb 2013. It seems they have mixed both
cases together and Simon is taking the blame for all of it within the costs. The Crown does need to
give us all the information to the Feb 2013 case including pictures so we can see ourselves the
damage to the building and they need to tell us if anyone was changed in Feb 2013 and what was the
outcome. If the crown does not do this then this is an unfair trail they will be holding as to Simon
case. Also, we need to see all the insurance claims to see the total costs of damage in Feb 2013 and
also for the claim in May 2013 and the reasons as to why both cases have been linked together by the
insurance company. Also, where is the insurance claim for the items within the warehouse that was
meant to have been taken as so far, I can only see a claim for the damage to the building?
Any claim would need to include a list of the items that were taken and would need to be replaced.
Someone cannot just come up with a figure of a cost for items that were taken and so far, it seems as
if that has what has been done in both cases Feb 2013 and May 2013.
313,
Lorraine / Simon
From: Lorraine Cordell [Mail To:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 28 November 2013 19:54
To: 'JOSEPHINE WARD'
Subject: RE: CPS response to secondary disclosure and confirmation of conference
Hi Josey
Thank you for the email I just got it so will let Simon look over this tomorrow. Can I ask something
the receipt from LiLo Leisure is that the receipt for the 16/02/2013 or the?
04/05/2013
as it seems to be the same receipt. What we want is a full list of items and amounts that were taken on
the 04/05/2013 and also the same for the
16/02/2013
someone can’t say an amount in £s of damage and items were taken yet not have a full list, or are they
saying on each of the receipts for the
04/05/2013
and the
16/02/2013
all of the items listed on the receipts were taken it does not make sense as they seem to be the same
receipts. There are also no invoices for the repair of the damage on the
16/02/2013
or the
04/05/2013