MY NAME: MAXINE WOOD

EVIDENCE:

Snowball Playlist Track 1 - Covertly gained audio recording of PC Mark Davies.
Partial transcript of the damning conversation below.
All email evidence available, and will be uploaded at a later date.

MY STATEMENT OF TRUTH:

In June 2020, the retired Met police officer Mr X, made completely
ridiculous counter allegations against me (at that time he was under
investigation by the Met, and later charged with harassment of me).
GMP made preliminary investigations - no crime.
Mr X appealed, GMP had a look again - no crime.
Yet another appeal by Mr X, GMP looked at it again - no crime.
Mr X appealed again, and also made the unfounded claim that GMP were biased against him.

This all lead to PC Mark Davies coming to speak to me on 6th Sept 2021.
See Snowball Playlist Track 1.
According to Davies, Chief Inspector Danny O'Neill had decided that:

Although all officers involved at GMP, including himself, did not believe that any crime had been committed, a completely innocent person and relentlessly persecuted victim of the maniac's should come in for interview under caution in order to "appease" the pretend victim.
Then the 'case' could be sent to the CPS for them to "squash" it, and "quell from an independent source" taking away the GMP 'biased' accusation, as the guaranteed NFA would come from the CPS instead of GMP.
Basically, the relentless and manic Mr X, bullied GMP into submission, and they were happy to use me (the real victim) as a tool to help implement their cowardly decisions and actions.

THE FIRST SERIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS:
Requesting a voluntary attendance and interview under caution for ONE reason and ONE reason alone - to protect GMP (not to protect the victim or the public in general).

THE SECOND SERIOUS ABUSE OF POLICE/CPS PROCESS:
To have a 'crime' that did not meet the CPS threshold and that could be dealt with at police level, earmarked for CPS immediately, regardless of 'suspect' interview and defence - for ONE reason and ONE reason alone - to protect GMP (again, not to protect the public or the victim).

This is:
MALFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE


Although initially sympathetic to GMP (I knew just how unreasonably relentless the madman could be!) I then took a different stance. I had fought this bully almost single handedly for nearly three years at this point, yet he had managed to 'bully' a police force, and they were happy to 'use' me to help them in their cowardice!

Following Davies's visit to me, I then refused to voluntary attend for interview, explaining my new stance as I have above. I demanded that they needed to do the right thing, and tell the maniac YET AGAIN, that there was no crime, as by their own admissions there actually WAS NO CRIME.
They just went quiet (ignored me). If I didn't have the audio recording, the bastards would have hauled me in once I refused the voluntary attendance. I held the upper hand, so they didn't know what to do.

                        In early Oct 2021, I submitted a complaint against Chief Inspector                                  Danny O'Neill, This complaint was 'investigated' by Superintendent                              Helen Critchley (see ICall.0024). The only reason that she actually                              went through 'the motions' of investigating is because I had the audio                          recording. If I hadn't had the audio recording, my 'understanding' of                            what PC Davies had relayed to me, would have been cruelly cast aside  by GMP and instantly labelled as me 'misinterpreting' PC Davies's words.

Critchley's 'findings' were that PC Mark Davies made the whole thing up! Chief Inspector Danny O'Neill said nothing of the sort 🙃 ... judge for yourselves.

Please note, that although Chief Inspector Danny O'Neill is not named in the audio recording (Snowball Track 1) he was identified later by Critchley, as being the Chief Inspector who didn't make these decisions. That in itself is strange - PC Davies mentions two Chief Inspectors, so how the f**k did she establish which one of the two ... "did not" say these things?

                                                      Bad Cop No Donut Track 1
                                                   Chief Inspector Danny O'Neill
                                                                      ICallUOut










The Snowball Track 1 audio recording is not the best quality (all my others are). Therefore here is a sample of the PC Davies dialogue from Snowball Track 1:

0.45 secs to 3.35 mins
PC Davies

(Sigh) ... which in my opinion and the opinions of my colleagues.... no grounds for ..the documents he has provided for what he claims as evidence ...

A colleague of mine last year did what was expected of him which was to close the case as it didn't meet the threshold to get to the CPS...

He has appealed and complained and it's got to the point now where we have had two chief inspectors involved now ... try ... and also to try and appease in the same way that ...

One of the chief inspectors wants ... if we can try and speak to you about it just to sort of, if anything quell it from an independent source...

We don't believe it meets the threshold to get there anyway (CPS) ...basically something has to have a substantial amount of offence to get there anyway ... and the evidence has to support that. What we have so far we don't think it does (meet the threshold).
However he (the chief inspector) wants it to go there to cease it all from an independent, separate from the police, that makes that decision.

He wants it to seem like ... potentially it's not just the police saying we're not doing this any more, it will come from the CPS, they will make that decision (to NFA).

... The way that our supervision are looking at it is that it is a big waste of police time and your time, however to show we're independent on the matter there cos, if it goes to the IOPC the same thing will happen all over again. So we're going to send to the CPS whatever we have for them to say look .. (inaudible).

9.10 - 11.05

Davies again:

That's why we're saying it doesn't meet the threshold as such. There's 2 ways that we would run this now ... (inaudible) ... insufficient evidence of that offence taking place which I imagine supervision will have time to do, however I know that our chief inspector has requested that it goes to the CPS to have that independent party be the one's that squash it.
We've told him no three times, 3 independent people have looked at it ...

Well basically should you decide that you want to make an admission of something ... yes to the messages and .... our supervision would likely issue a caution to squash the matter

(MAXINE - I'M NOT ACCEPTING A CAUTION. NO) ...

(inaudible) ...

So this has been passed on from the other officers who have looked at it previously, I doubt that it's all filtered through as he has sent it over to me. What he has also done is screenshot a select amount of messages which is very clever to do as it shows one side. You can see that all the way through, it is a conversation, its not one way.