Mark Evans of Valley Vets Cardiff, based in Gabalfa, worked for the Vale of Glamorgan Council. It was his evidence which caused me, to eventually change my pleas to guilty, in the case pursued against me in 2009. My change of plea, was done on the advice of my former Llantwit Major solicitor.
Now this YouTube video posses the question, did Mark Evans lie in the evidence he gave against me? The statement Mark Evans gave against me in 2011 to the High Court, was never challenged as there was never a Court hearing to do so. The case I attempted to bring against Mark Evans in the High court, was dismissed, as it was ruled Mark Evans owed me ‘no duty of care’ and that he was working for the Vale of Glamorgan council. His duty of care was to the Vale Council.
Had the opportunity been given to me, the question to Mark Evans would have been, if it was his professional opinion, that when he turned up at my home, on the 4th July 2008, that he honestly found an animal in ‘chronic pain and discomfort,’ why nine hours later had he not treated with any pain relief or any medication at all?
I have made repeated attempts to the RCVS Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, asking them to examine the statement Mark Evans gave against me, and they have flatly refused to. Why?
New documents now revealed in this YouTube video, supported by a statement from an Independent vet, now reveal a more sinister aspect to the case prosecuted against me.
At the present time, as far as I am aware, there is no actual evidence, to confirm that Ben Needham, is alive or dead.
In 2003 with the consent of Ben’s Mother, Kerry, I set up the very first website featuring Ben’s case. I was very surprised that until I volunteered to help, there was no website up about Ben. It became routine that people would send me many emails and photographs and reported possible sightings, of a person who they believed could be missing Ben Needham. Many of these could be instantly discounted, but one or two stood out.
A lot has happened in recent years, but recently I have been reviewing material sent to me over the years. One of the most significant photographs, is the one featured here. It has never been published before. A copy of this photograph was handed to Kos Police when I again met with them in September 2020. I think it is a very interesting photograph, which has a great resemblance with jaw bone structure, shape of head, styling of hair – when compared with artists impressions created in recent years.
Another reason for my interest in this photograph is the location where it was taken – Turkey. As I stood in the tiny harbour of Kos, looking across the water you can clearly see the white houses, on the coast of Turkey.
What do you think? Do you think this could be Ben?
My new informant (September 2020) tells me that Dino was not present when Ben disappeared.
If Dino was responsible, why having just accidentally killed Ben, (and such a person would be in an absolute state of shock) would that person then walk up to the Farmhouse gate, and remove Ben’s toy cars from the ground? Such a move is not only not comprehendible, but the family say they were sitting the other side of the Farmhouse gate in the kitchen eating their lunch.
If Dino was responsible, he would have been the one to have removed Ben’s wet shorts, which were hanging on a tree branch, again directly outside the Farmhouse gate.
According to South Yorkshire Police, the JCB Dino was operating on the day Ben was last seen, was sold by Dino eighteen years after the disappearance. Why would Dino keep hold of this JCB for so long if it would implicate him in Ben’s death?
The distance we are talking about, to get a prospective on this, Dino would have been twelve feet away from family members, sitting inside the Farmhouse. All that separated Dino and family members, was an open door.
As a Private Investigator who has worked voluntarily on this case since 2003, I have recently returned from a further visit to Greece. Whilst there an informant, unexpectedly gave me interesting information. If verified this would alter the whole direction of this case.
South Yorkshire Police concluded in 2016, it was their professional opinion, that Ben Needham most likely died in an accident, with a mechanical JCB digger, which was operating in the area on the day Ben went missing. Although the driver of the digger, Konstantinos ‘Dino’ Barkas was working near the Farmhouse in Iraklise, where Ben was left to play, the informant has told me, that Dino was actually away from the property, around lunchtime, when it is said Ben disappeared. It was only when he returned to the Farmhouse after lunch, to recommence work, that he became aware that Ben had gone missing. This could be the most significant development in this case to date, if this information checks out.
The Metropolitan Police have recently (April 2019) applied to The Home Office for yet more public funding in this case.
Madeleine disappeared 12 years ago. To date the British public have donated almost 12 million pounds in the search.
I believe the time has now come for a High Court Judge to consider a request for a Judicial Review. A Judicial Review will seek to ask if it is appropriate for any further PUBLIC funds to be given to the search for Madeleine.
I have instructed a Bristol based solicitor www.watkinssolicitors.co.uk but I need to raise £2,500 for them to commence legal action. If you would like to see a Judge consider a request for a Judicial Review, please support me by pledging a small sum as little as £10. See the following link to support me. We have limited time to raise this small amount of money. The clock is ticking. Please SHARE this post to anyone you think is interested in this case, Thank you.
The following House of Lords ruling, likely to be pivotal, in having the case prosecuted against me in 2008 vacated.
“Fairness ordinarily requires that any material held by the prosecution which weakens its case or strengthens that of the defendant, if not relied on as part of its formal case against the defendant, should be disclosed to the defence. Bitter experience has shown that miscarriages of justice may occur where such material is withheld from disclosure. The golden rule is that full disclosure of such material should be made.” (R v H [2004] UKHL 3; [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. 10, House of Lords).
The Vale of Glamorgan Council with held veterinary ‘contemporaneous notes’ knowing full well they were in direct breach of the above House of Lords ruling on disclosure.
Many of you will beware, Ben Needham was a British toddler who disappeared on the Greek island of Kos around lunchtime on the 24th July 1991. At that time he was just 21 months old. I have been involved in the Ben’s case since 2003. At that time neither the Kos or British Police, were doing anything to resolve this mysterious case. I was shocked that Ben’s family had not put up even a basic website to try and reach out to Ben, or to anyone who had any relevant information to progress his case.
I set up a website www.benneedhamstillmissing.info I knew publicity would be crucial and heighten the profile of this case. I visited Uri Geller at his home and he kindly offered support for my search.
Latterly Michael Jackson also expressed his support. I secured interviews for Kerry (Ben’s Mother) on various TV shows including Trisha and also Richard & Judy, and many radio stations. I was very happy to offer my expertise and time. I also traveled to Kos with Danny Ben’s uncle. I had several meetings with the Kos Police. At this time I developed a good working relationship with the family liaison officer assigned to Ben’s case at South Yorkshire Police.
As my website was the only place appealing for information, I used to get frequent reports of sightings from people who believed they had spotted Ben. I must have received hundreds of snap shots during the early years of my investigation. These sightings usually increased during the summer months with many British tourists travelling to Greece it’s Islands and nearby Turkey.
Around 2007/2008 I received an email from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force. They had received a tip off that a person who could be Ben Needham was living in their community. The Detective asked me if I wanted him to see if the young man, would voluntarily provide a DNA sample. It could then be sent to me so I could arrange testing in the UK. The young man was happy to provide it, and the Detective dispatched it to me.
On the 4th July 2008 a warrant was executed at my home. The warrant had been obtained by a Licensing officer working for the Vale of Glamorgan Council. She had been harassing me for 12 months. Bizarrely the Licensing officer removed several files on Ben Needham from my office. The DNA sample from Canada was in one of the files. The Licensing officer of course had no authority under the warrant, to remove such property, but that didn’t stop her. When my property was returned the following year in February 2009 the DNA had been lost. So there was never an opportunity for me to arrange testing to see if it matched Ben’s DNA profile. We lost a significant opportunity to attempt to advance this case.
Here is a link to a feature published in the Mail on Sunday 24th January 2016.
The case against me was instigated by Licensing Officer Amanda. I had recently fallen out with Amanda. I had recently made three formal complaints against her, to her employer the Vale of Glamorgan Council. In over thirty years in the pet trade, this has been the only occasion, where animal welfare concerns, have ever been raised against me.
On the 20th June 2008 Amanda made an unannounced inspection of animals at my home (fully licensed premises). I was informed this was because she had received one complaint. She brought with her, the Council contracted Vet from a Cardiff company called Valley Vets Ltd. They found no cause for concern for any animal in my care. The Senior licensing officer present with Amanda, thanked me for my cooperation and everyone left.
The vet wrote a report of his visit, dated 24/06/08 he wrote: ‘Mr Crosby was polite and cooperative. I was granted access to the garage, the garden and a shed within the garden, as well as the kitchen and living room of the house.’
Two weeks later 4th July 2008, Amanda was back at my home with the same vet and a Police Constable. She served on me a warrant. This gave her the right, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to enter my home. Amanda seized hundreds of personal and business items. She also seized one hundred and fifty animals.
When I was eventually allowed access to my office, I was concerned though not surprised, that Amanda had seized my entire office contents. Every note I had on the walls literally everything. She left just a desk and a chair. This caused an immediate cessation to my Internet based business.
There was obviously no need for her to have sought a warrant, as their own vet had confirmed in his report, how willing I had been only two weeks earlier, in fully cooperating.
Amanda only sought the warrant, as it would give her the opportunity to remove anything she wanted to. By doing so she was fully aware her wilful action would cause an instant cessation to my business.
Bizarrely Amanda removed numerous boxes of my research material in the Lord Lucan and Ben Needham case. These could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered covered by the warrant she had obtained. A file she removed on Ben’s case also contained a DNA blood sample sent to me by a Detective working for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I had during the previous year, received the helpful services of Vale Solicitors. I had sought their legal advice, as I felt I was being subjected to frequent business harassment by Amanda. On one such occasion, I was on holiday in Spain. I received a telephone call from an employee Ryan who was caring for animals in my home in my absence. He informed me that Amanda was in my kitchen in my home!
It was my firm belief her aim was to put me out of business. By this time I had discovered documents, written by the Licensing Department at the Vale of Glamorgan Council, which made it very clear that they never wished to license me to operate a pet business from home. They licensed me, because they could find no reason not to issue my license to trade.
There are five main points which stand out in this bizarre case.
1. Why did my Defence solicitor, Vale Solicitors, fail to ask the Council if any contemporaneous notes or recordings, had been made of their inspection? That must surely be the first line of any Defence solicitor. Their website Criminal Law page states: ‘We believe that every case should be thoroughly investigated to achieve the best possible result for you.’
2. My Solicitor correctly sought the advice, of an independent Vet (Great Western Exotic Vets) about the summonses I faced. It is clear from the letter I received from this vet, that my Solicitor had not sent him for consideration, the statements written by the Vale of Glamorgan Council vet.
My Solicitor had been served these statements by the Council, so unlike the contemporaneous notes which he failed to seek disclosure of, the vet statements were in his possession. Had he sent these statements, as the Vet from Great Western Exotic Vets states, the Professional opinion he gave to my Solicitor, ‘could have made a difference to the opinion which I would express in a witness statement.’
Not guilty pleas were entered on the 23rd March 2009, to all the summonses the Vale of Glamorgan Council issued against me. It was the persistent advice from my solicitor, which made me change some pleas to guilty. He advised me, on the basis of the evidence, given against me by the Council vet, if the matter went to trial, I would be convicted and would most likely go to custody. I didn’t want to risk going to custody for something I was innocent of. I thought I could change my pleas at a later stage.
It wasn’t too difficult for Magistrate’s, at the sentencing hearing to question when I informed them, that despite my guilty plea, I would be seeking to appeal both my conviction and sentence. But nobody bothered to ask me, why I was planning to do this. In UK Courts everyday, the Justice system actively invites defendants to plead guilty, although many are not guilty. In return they receive a more lenient sentence. This system should surely be questioned.
3. When I subsequently asked Amanda in an email if any notes had been taken, at her inspection on the 20th June 2008, why did she state: ‘I confirm there were no written notes.’
4. When I attempted to sue the Vet, his solicitor Hill Dickinson sent me a letter dated 29 June 2011. Paragraph two of this letter clearly states: ‘We confirm that notes were taken at the inspections on the 20th June and 4th July 2008.’
5. The final point is this. I have for pushed for eight years, for a Criminal Investigation to be conducted against Amanda and the Council Vet. My allegation is that they did, Conspire to Pervert the Course of Justice.
On 15th December 2016, a Detective Richard working for South Wales Police finally obtained a copy of the ‘contemporaneous notes.’
Why has the vet’s solicitor Hill Dickinson stated to Detective Richard: ‘Mr Crosby has asked for these notes under the Data Protection Act but we have refused to disclose them. These are being disclosed to you, on a strictly confidential basis and are not for onward disclosure to Ian Crosby under any circumstances.
Why would Amanda need to lie about the existence of the ‘contemporaneous notes’? Why does the Council Vet’s solicitor, insist the notes must not be disclosed to me ‘under any circumstances.?’ What are they hiding?
None disclosure of documents in criminal proceedings is currently very much a topical issue.
My allegation has always been, what the Vet discovered on his visit (4th July 2008) and what he then wrote in his report five weeks later (written at the request of Amanda) dated 12th August 2008 was significantly different.
It allowed Amanda to summons me with the most serious of the summons that she was building against me, to justify her actions in removing substantial property from my home. Vale solicitors wrote the following in their notes. ‘What he needed to bear in mind was that the evidence principally lodged at the Court by the Council did not in fact result from execution of the warrant. The main evidence was that of the Council vet.’
Amanda was probably happy, to asserted her power in my home, by removing my entire office contents, and causing the cessation of my business.
I believe she was subsequently advised, her actions, in exceeding the recommendation of Section 7.5 and 7.7 of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1998, could give cause on my part, to make a substantial claim for damages, against the Vale of Glamorgan Council her employers, potentially running in to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
I continue to press for disclosure of the ‘contemporaneous notes.’
In order to legally comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 I have ‘redacted’ individuals full names.
Conservation:
It is considered critically endangered due to its tiny range (it inhabits an area of less than 10 km2), continuing habitat loss, and the illegal capture of salamanders for the wild animal trade. In 2008, the wild population was estimated at less than 1,000 individuals. However, a new survey in 2014 estimates a population of over 9,000 adults, and range estimate that could provide habitat for more than 40,000 Neurergus kaiseri.
The Luristan newt is a candidate for CITES listing. It also has a captive breeding program involving several European and North American zoos, such as Sedgwick County Zoo. Iran is planning on starting its own breeding program.
