Other evidence of the Masonic Mafia Cess pit. The damage caused by the vehicle collision still remains today (January 3, 2000).
The Chief Constable, 16A The Lyons,
Durham Constabulary, Hetton-le-Hole,
Police Headquarters, Tyne-Wear,
Aykley Heads, DH5 OHT
Your Ref: JM/CC970111
Our Ref: MK/LS/POL/10
8 December 1997
I write again to ask for your assistance and co-operation in resolving the matter of the damage which occurred to our property on Tuesday 28 January 1997. It is very clear that police officers have not told the truth in respect of this matter.
To help in clarifying the truth I enclose copies of letters that I have received both from Northumbria and Durham Police Forces.
In the enclosed copy letter of 14 February 1997 received from Northumbria Police it will be seen that it had been agreed that the vehicle which damaged our property was acknowledged to have been subject of pursuit by Durham and Northumbria Police. A police officer at Washington Area Police Headquarters had already agreed before that date that the vehicle in question was subject of pursuit by both Durham and Northumbria Police.
The copy letter that I enclose from Northumbria Police dated 4 March 1997 then alleges that the stolen vehicle was not subject of police pursuit. It will be seen that a story has been concocted which was that: "a vehicle had been speeding around, this would explain the response by police at the scene of the collision".
The above concocted story did not tally with the account given to me by the owner of the stolen vehicle, Mr Anderson.
Again it is seen in the copy letter enclosed from Northumbria Police dated 13 March 1997 that it was wrongly alleged the vehicle had not been subject of police pursuit.
The enclosed copy letter from Durham Constabulary dated 22 July 1997 that it was alleged that the Durham Constabulary vehicle was "searching for and not chasing the stolen vehicle".
In the letter which I received from Durham Constabulary dated 20 October 1997 there is now the statement made :
"that the Durham Police vehicle had followed the stolen vehicle from Murton to Seaham". That statement does corroborate the statement made to me by the owner of the vehicle, Mr Anderson. He said police had told him that they saw it leaving Winnslonnen Estate, Murton and it was not showing any lights. According to Mr. Anderson, he said police told him that they gave chase to the vehicle but as the road conditions were icy they were not prepared to travel at the higher speeds of the stolen vehicle.
I would remind you that Seaham is in an easterly direction from Murton . Our property is some three miles to the west of Murton. So it follows that Durham Police agree that they "followed"? the vehicle for some considerable distance into the Northumbria Police area. I am informed that adjoining area Police forces do not normally "follow" vehicles into another police force area unless the vehicle is subject of their pursuit.
The statement is made in the letter of 20 October 1997:
"The Durham Police officers believed the stolen vehicle had turned left to go to Easington Lane, it had in fact turned into Hetton. The officers soon realised the stolen vehicle had not turned into Easington Lane and backtracked to Hetton. They arrived at the scene of the accident some two or three minutes after it occurred".
From these statements Durham police agree that they were "following" the stolen vehicle. Surely common sense suggests that when police "follow" a stolen vehicle they are engaged in the pursuit of it. Whether or not the driver of the stolen vehicle is able to give police the slip or not does not detract from the fact that they pursue a stolen vehicle they do not just "follow" it.
It will be seen in the copy letter dated 4 March 1997 that Inspector Atkinson of Washington Police had alleged that the vehicle had not been subject of Police pursuit. He alleged in his letter to me:
"There were a number of police vehicles in the area both from Northumbria and Durham police forces following reports that a vehicle had been speeding around, this would explain the prompt response by police at the scene of the collision".
The above statement does not correspond with his later statement included in the copy letter included herein dated 20 October 1997.
From conclusions which are drawn from the statements made by police it would seem that police do not "pursue" stolen vehicles, they only "follow" them. The statement that police were not pursuing that vehicle on 28 January 1997 but were only following it is absurd. Perhaps the public should be made aware that police do not pursue stolen vehicles but only "follow" them? The police do have a responsibility in the damage to our property because they were most certainly pursuing that vehicle. The distance that they were behind that vehicle is considered as not being relevant. It is clear that the driver of the stolen vehicle was fully aware that police had pursued him from Murton, then to Seaham and then back again to Murton and then to Hetton. Police were on the scene earlier than the two to three minutes that are alleged in the letter of 20 October. Of course the question arises in any event as to how police can allege that they arrived on the scene of the collision some two or three minutes after it had occurred when the allegation is made that they were not in attendance at the time that it occurred?
It has still not been verified to me by police whether Mr. Anderson had been interviewed with regard to the statement that he made to me regarding the account police had given to him of their "pursuit" of his vehicle?
I have no intention whatsoever of conceding this matter and again request payment in full of the cost of the damage to our property. I have already commenced to give this matter the publicity it rightly deserves. Failing a just response from police, I will have little alternative but to proceed and place the matter before the Court, and hope that the judge presiding over it will not be a member of Britains leading Secret Society, the Freemasons, who are so involved in the Judicial system and indeed the police. I would also point out that my own costs in this matter are also rising.
I apologise for the delay in replying to the letter of 20 October 1997 but my own illness, along with the death of a family member have prevented me from replying earlier.
Mr. M. Kellett
Go to contact links
Back to opening page
Back to page list