.....         Letter sent to Circuit Judge Alan Simpson, by J. F. Hulbert - October 9, 1993.

Your Honour,
Because of my frustration at being prevented, by the Crown Court Clerk, from obtaining evidence from the Jurors' at my trial, to show that the notes of evidence have been tampered with, I'm compelled to write to you personally, to appeal to you to have the Jurors' informed that they may, if they wish, communicate with me. No-one, with a clear conscience should object to me trying to get to the truth, provided that they don't have reason to believe that I will interfere with, or try to influence, them.

I know, I believe that you know and Mrs. West, certainly knows, that the notes of evidence have been tampered with, in the following respects:

1) Custody Officer's evidence;
2) the Special Constable's evidence: purporting to support the false second statement
of the first witness;
3) remarks attributed to you, that you did not make and I believe you know, you did
not make;

I remember well, your words, when you seemed to be addressing Counsel, before the Jury were sworn in and before I had uttered one word. May I remind you of them, because I would be surprised if Mrs. West faithfully recorded them. On the other hand, they are words that I shall never forget: they were: - "Mr. Hulbert is an awkward customer, but that's all right, we all have our eccentricities and that's his." - Since you had never met me, I could only assume that you took me to be an awkward customer, because I was taking advantage of my right to defend myself. If trying to
get to the truth, makes me an awkward customer, then you would have been quite right, but I would have preferred the word 'stubborn' and only because I am absolutely convinced, that I am right.

I can understand how it was thought quite safe to tamper with the evidence, after all, there are no defence notes of evidence. I have no support, from either a Solicitor, or Counsel, as you know. I made no reference to the evidence that has been tampered with, in either my testimony, or my summing up, as you know. The testimony of the custody Officer, can not be compared with a written statement, because he did not make one, as you also know.

The person responsible for fabricating the record of evidence has gone to a great deal of trouble to do it and even though I know how it was done, I would like the person responsible, to say why it was done, because that person has not done Mrs. West, any favours and until evidence is obtained, I shall have great difficulty in convinceing my legal advisor that what has happened actually did happen, so you can see why it is, that I wish to communicate with the Jurors'.

Because you were the presiding Judge and because of the serious nature of my allegations, I don't think you will ignore this letter, a copy of which has been sent to my Solicitor, who incidentally, knew not, of my intention to write it.

If this letter casts some doubt on your own integrity, you may think it proper, as I do, that the matter be investigated by another authority and you may also think that the proper thing to do would be to ensure that I, or my Solicitor, be supplied with the identity, and addresses of the Jurors', or at least to ensure that I am not further obstructed from trying to make contact with them. This for the sake of your own good name.

The Jury were not prepared to disbelieve me at my trial and I am prepared to believe them if they say that all is well with the notes of evidence. Are you prepared to believe them if they say, that all is nt well with them? I do think that in all fairness, you should grant my request.

I am aware that I am free, to make a complaint to the Police and that they would be able to make an investigation and that I shall do as a last resort.

Finally, in writing this letter, I have tried to be as respectful as I can, under the circumstances.

J. F. Hulbert.
PS. I remember and bear in mind that the transcript of evidence shows that you misinformed the Jury in that the Special Constable testified that she made up her notes at 01.30, or at least, you implied that.

NOTE - The response, that I got from the Chief Clerk of the Court, was that Judge Simpson, had said, that he was no longer involved with the case which prompted me to write the Judge a further letter, dated January 19, 1994.

Dear Judge Simpson,
Further to my letter to you, dated 9 October 1993. The letter did not get the response from you, that I had hoped for although, on reflection, I suppose, I couldn't really have expected you to direct the Jurors', at my trial, to be contacted, to support my allegation that the notes of evidence have been tampered with, but for you to tell the Chief Clerk that you are no longer involved with the case and to give that as the reason for ignoring my plea to you has made me very angry. The fact is that you are involved up to your neck. Your denial (of my request) has forced me to be very forthright. I now accuse you of conspiring to alter evidence and I defy you to call the only independent witnesses: the Jurors', to support you should you choose to take libel action.

I am sure that you will consider this letter carefully. I would then hope you do the honourable thing.

NOTE - I did report the matter to the Police, who the Judge had been trying to protect by falsifying the evidence of two of the Officers', so I do not expect that criminal charges, will be laid against the Judge, nor his accomplice: , because she would necessarily have to expose him, such is the overwhelming evidence against her, not the least, her original shorthand books, which are in the possession of her Solicitor. I have examined the books, and they have clearly been tampered with, and have pages missing. It is not surprising, that Mrs. West's Solicitor has thus far, steadfastly
declined my repeated requests for them to be released, for forensic examination. If the books are destroyed, I shall have to rely on the photo copies that I have in my possession and on correspondence from Mrs. West's Solicitor, to demonstrate missing pages: damage etc.
District Judge Weston