When I was arrested on 13th August 2004, in between two spells in a cell at Eastbourne Custody Centre, I was interviewed by PC Francis. The interview was recorded on two sets of tapes. According to a form which I signed, I should have received the tapes "as soon as practicable" after the interview. In this case, it took more than twelve months and much persistence before I was able to listen to the tapes.
Earlier, I was allowed only the police's text version of the tapes, signed by PC Francis. This document is known as a Record of Taped Interview. According to CPS Guidance on Tape Recorded Interviews, because the CPS classed my case as "complex" (as I had refused to accept a caution, it was to be expected that I would "plead not guilty"), the Record "should contain not only admissions but also the main salient points verbatim." My analysis of the tapes will take this into account.
The first 2 minutes 57 seconds of the first tape give an account of the circumstances of the interview, represented in the text version by a summary. 2.57 - 4.14 are represented in the text version by a mixture of verbatim quotation, reported speech, and summary.
Thereafter, the text version of the first tape appears to be a verbatim transcription, even to the extent of including quasi-phonetic representations of speech (e.g. "yeah", "erm", and "cos"), and accounting for silent seconds with "(pause on tape)".
That said, there are only very brief omissions and inaccuracies in the transcription of the first tape. There are, for instance, ten occasions on which the speech was "inaudible" according to PC Francis. For a couple of these occasions the word "incomprehensible" should be substituted for "inaudible": at 11.08 the text reads:PC Francis Do you know anything about his illness? Prisoner Oh, yes, I've been told of that (inaudible)
From the tape it is clear that what I said was, "Oh, yes, I've been told of that ad nauseam". Similarly, after 17.41 the text has me saying "I took photographs of the (inaudible) plant", when it is clear from the tape that I identifed the subject as "the ribes plant". The second example is trivial, but the first is important.
Another source of the "inaudible" is PC Francis's hectoring approach to interviewing: if he does not receive the response he wants to a question from or an assertion by him, he is apt talk over what one is saying. When, at 18.24, I was responding to PC Francis's attempts to persuade me that walking on a shared access area to take photographs of the rear wall of my garage was harassing, and walking on the McCombies' drive to stop a clematis shoot penetrating my garage roof any further was harassing, what PC Francis classes as "inaudible" is only partially inaudible. Where the text records me as saying, "This is a shared access area. The paved area which is walked over by (inaudible)", it is clear on the tape that I said "by postmen" and then pointed out that PC Francis parked his car there.
Inaccuracies in the text are too many to deal with exhaustively, but I will point out a few which cumulatively create a false impression. When at 7.12 PC Francis asked, "How do you get on with your neighbours?", he has me saying "Peter MILLER I see occasionally, he lives at number 12." The tape confirms that what I said was, "Peter Miller I see occasionally, and speak to - he lives at number 12." Just over a minute later, the text has me saying, "there's MABRY, who tried to take part of lawn to widen his drive", when it is clear from the tape that what I said was, "there's Mabry, who tried to take part of my front lawn to widen his drive." Later (27.44) PC Francis, according to the text, asks about Mabry: "would you say that Mr MABRY walks around like a normal human being - like a ... with a normal ability human being, should I say." The text alleges my answer to be: "Well ... he seems to have an abundant ability to climb ladders, say. In that I've seen him climb on the roof of Smith's house to fix something on a chimney." On the tape it is clear that I said "above average ability to climb ladders".
At 30.19, PC Francis asked me about "insulting remarks" that I made about the McCombies, a subject that I anticipate examining in more detail later. At 30.19 the text reads:PC Francis Insulting remarks? Prisoner Yeah. But I put up with insulting remarks from neighbours for more than 5 years at that time. And I'm willing, verbally, to engage in such confrontation, so I put some comments on the website, to try to dissuade the McCOMBIE's from continuing to shout abuse at me.
The second sentence of my response is perfectly clear on the tape. It does not start with "And": it starts "I'm unwilling". The police's text version blurs or controverts an important point: that I only included insulting remarks about the McCombies on my website because I was unwilling to respond in speech to abusive remarks made to me and about me for more than five years by Mabry and his friends the McCombies, yet wanted to respond in some way after the Sussex Police and Eastbourne County Court had proved of no help whatever in stopping the abuse.
I now want to comment on another "inaudible" comment from me at 35.49, but am taking the opportunity to introduce a longer quotation from the interview text which illustrates the way South Wealden police officers talk to the public whom they are supposed to be serving. The extract begins just before 35.16 on the tape:PC Francis I think you refer to Mr MCCOMBIE as a zombie due to his illness. Prisoner No, not true. PC Francis Mr McCOMBIE thinks you refer to him because of his illness as a zombie. Prisoner The primary reason is that it rhymes with McCombie. PC Francis So McCOMBIE zombie, oh it's like a schoolchild thing, isn't it? Prisoner Well, it's not necessarily schoolchild. That reminds me of PC WILKINSON who compared my dispute with MABRY to two children quarrelling in the playground. PC Francis But McCOMBIE zombie is a little bit like that, isn't it? Children make up names like that, don't they? Prisoner Well, to me it's less offensive than calling someone a 'motherfucker'. PC Francis Children make up names like that, don't they? Prisoner And it's no more offensive than me being addressed as "Look (inaudible) you wanker."
PC Francis's offensive manner speaks for itself. To hear this exchange for yourself, click on the blue lamp of Hailsham police station.
Incidentally, the PC Wilkinson mentioned in the above duologue is the police constable from the Hailsham station who, when told of the abusive language I had been suffering from neighbours, told me that we have freedom of speech in this country.
The "inaudible" inserted in my last utterance was evidently a deliberate falsification of the evidence constituted by this first tape. The phrase that I used is clear enough on the tape, and PC Francis should have been familiar with it as it is quoted on a short page on my website devoted to the McCombies' language. The phrase I spoke is "Look Madden you wanker," a phrase shouted by Mr McCombie that I quoted in a letter to Eastbourne County Court.
A minute later, PC Francis is quoting Mr MCombie saying that I had published "lies and falsehoods" on my website. When I had a chance to respond, the following dialogue ensued:Prisoner McCOMBIE also said my garage wall is made of engineering bricks. PC Francis Can we try and keep to the point, sir? Prisoner That is. PC Francis It's not pertinent to the point that we're talking about, we're not talking about bricks and harassing somebody, talking about bricks and harassing are 2 different things, sir. Prisoner What Mr McCOMBIE says. (... pause on tape ...)
After the pause, PC Francis changed the subject to the taking of photographs. I had been trying to respond to the allegation that I had published "lies and falsehoods" on my website, and the above dialogue may seem a little less inconsequential if one knows that my last contribution was misquoted: quite clearly I say on the tape, "We're talking about what Mr McCombie says."
I think that the first tape reflects badly on the standard of policing in Sussex. What the second tape was to reveal is far worse.
The second tape starts with 50 seconds of preliminaries, summarised in the text version.
The next five minutes of the interview are represented by ten lines in the text which appear from the text to be summary or recapitualtion of what went before. I cannot see the point of doing this: as a summary it is clearly inadequate, and it introduces untruths: "DP agrees that he only gets on with Mr & Mrs HASTINGS" - no, DP does not.
The last sentence of what appears to be a summary or recapitulation of what went before is more disquieting:
"PC FRANCIS then reiterates on DP's relationship with his neighbours who DP admits to insulting Mr & Mrs McCOMBIE but states that they insult him back and then relates to a prior county court appearance against them when they had refused mediation regarding a dispute about an aerial and boundary wall."
There are two points I wish to make about this: the first involves serious and probably deliberate misunderstanding of the situation; the second involves criminal tampering with evidence.
(1) "DP admits to insulting Mr & Mrs McCOMBIE but states that they insult him back": No, DP most certainly does not state that. The offending word is "back". Mrs McCombie first referred to DP as "the little shit" in 1991, and as far as I remember the second time she did so was in the same year. The purpose of putting insults on the website was - PC Wilkinson having told me that we have freedom of speech in the country, and a judge having said that abusive language is a matter for the police - to try to put a stop to abusive language which had started in January 1999 with Mrs Mabry calling me a "neighbour from Hell" and Mr Mabry calling me "a little shit".
(2) PC Francis's reference to a "boundary wall" is as puzzling as his syntax and vocabulary here, and "they" did not refuse mediation; but the important point to make about the last part of the above quotation is that it has nothing whatever to do with a summary or recapitulation of what was said during the recording of the first tape. In the middle of a sentence PC Francis switches from what went before to a criminally inadequate and misleading reference to statements I was about to make during the second recording.
The timing on the recording and the timing in the text version seem to be some 35 seconds out of synchronisation by 5.50; so I am using the timing on the tape to say that the text between 2.50 and 5.15 is represented by PC Francis as "then relates to a prior county court appearance against them when they had refused mediation regarding a dispute about an aerial and boundary wall."
The text for that time, in view of the fact that the main part of each tape is represented in the text version by transcription, should read as follows:PC Francis You think that basically he's a hen-pecked zombie because zombie rhymes with McCombie and that he's henpecked because his wife, erm, is the boss of the house? Prisoner Can I give you the only two specific examples I have of this? And they're both, if the County Court keep their records - they do recordings too - they should be in the recordings, I think. The first concerns the judge - when I went to court about the aerial - the judge asked whether we'd tried mediation, and I said that the McCombies had refused mediation, and McCombie turned to his wife and asked whether that was correct and she said that it was, so she was deciding what's what as regards that [?] she'd [?] refused mediation. Two mediators - splendid people - had visited me, and we'd discussed the thing and they - I suppose they either wrote or 'phoned and she had turned them down, refusing mediation. The second was in the court case over the wall. The judge had received a letter from the McCombies, and I didn't get a copy PC Francis (interrupting) You're not entitled to a copy. Prisoner Except it was about ownership of the wall. PC Francis It doesn't matter. Well, under the court procedures, everything you send as the complainant has got to go to the people you're complaining about. Everything that comes from the complained of doesn't have to go to you. It goes straight to the court. Prisoner Anyway, the judge said I could have a copy, and he sent someone out to photocopy the letter. I looked through the letter and I said, "This doesn't relinquish the claim to the wall," and the judge looked at it and then he asked McCombie if he'd given up the claim to the wall, and he turned to Mrs McCombie and asked her if they were giving up the claim to the wall. And so from those two instances - I mean they were both very important points - it seemed to me that Mrs McCombie was making the decisions. PC Francis Well, it could be a discussion and he's not making a decision on his own. Prisoner Well, that's how I interpreted it, you see.
The next sentence spoken is represented in PC Francis's text version as "5.50 PC F On your website these are all these things that you interpret things isn't it?". In the text, it comes immediately after the single paragraph beginning "0.50 PC F PC FRANCIS summarises on the points . . . "
PC Francis in the course of my interview was trying to make much of two insulting phrases, one of which included the word "henpecked", and it was Mr McCombie who signed a witness statement, though he was not at home for at least one of the events he "witnessed". I think the above passage has bearing on both those facts, and that it was deliberately and deceitfully omitted from the text version of my interview; and that PC Francis told me that I could not have copies of the two tape recordings because he did not want me to have access to the real evidence, presuming that the CPS would take the text as a true "record of taped interview".
From 5.50 until just after 36.04, the text version of the interview reverts to an attempt at transcription. That is followed by fifteen seconds which are partly direct quotation and partly a description of the end of recording. I will select a few of the failures to transcribe accurately for comment.
At 12.36, the non sequitur in the following dialogue might suggest that my mental state at the time was a cause for serious concern:Prisoner I think if someone calls me a mother fucker, I have a right to call them a fat slob. PC Francis So you have a right, do you? Prisoner Yes. (long silent pause). Christmas lights, yeah, 3 years I've had Christmas lights in my front garden.
Here, the inaccuracy is in the transcription of the first part of the prisoner's second comment. I said "Yes", then PC Francis said "Right". There was then a pause of 27 seconds while PC Francis's brain switched from the subject of insults to the next topic which he wanted to use in order to try to inflict his ignorant views on me. The first mention of "Christmas lights" was spoken by PC Francis. He then went on to parrot some of the drivel about Christmas lights that I had already read in correspondence from McCombie, who thought that I should not object to having his tacky coloured lights in my front garden in November 2003 in order to celebrate the birth of Christ. PC Francis went on to tell me that if I had wanted the lights moved from my garden, I should have taken the matter to Eastbourne County Court.
At 19.08 I was narrating how for a second time Mabry was following me in his car as I drove down towards Lion Hill. On the previous occasion I had feared that he might push me into the traffic on the main road, as Mabry is subject to fits of rage. According to the text, on this occasion I "put my foot down a bit, got someone from a side road between me and MABRY before I got to the neighbourhood." Clearly on the tape, that sentence ends, "before I got to the main road."
At 30.00 the text reads:PC Francis So you're saying that the insults that they're giving to you, you've retaliated with by putting insults onto your website. Prisoner Yes, in an attempt to disgrace them further, just as I hope, the fact that I've published the stuff about getting stuff through the post might stop people causing this to happen.
From the tape it is clear that I did not use the word "disgrace": what I said was "in an attempt to dissuade them further". The inaccuracy might be attributed the limitations of PC Francis's vocabulary, but then it is likely that if PC Francis were unprejudiced, he would have written "inaudible" as he did in the case of "ad nauseam" and "ribes" during the first part of the recording.
At 36.04, my closing statement is misrepresented:PC Francis Is there anything you wish to add or clarify at all? Prisoner Only that I think the alarm and distress I've been caused since 1999 are very much greater than any alarm and distress that have been caused from the McCOMBIE's.
What I said was, "that have been caused to the McCombies."
Overall, I am not surprised that it took me more than twelve months to extract the interview tapes from the police. As evidence to present to the CPS and a court, the often inaccurate record of taped interview produced by PC Francis is a disgrace, and the deliberate omission of important statements by me I take to be a criminal act.
 |