Blog Posts - Page 3 of 8

Jack’s case. Will £100,000 help?

Whilst it is incredibly generous, by the anonymous person, now offering £100,000 to help in Jack’s case, there is no sum of money, which will make any individual come forward. Eighteen months ago it was £20,000 now is has increased five fold. Financial help like this can help in some cases, but in Jack’s case, sadly it will not help.

13.2 million pounds to-date of British tax payers money, has done absolutely nothing, to find Madeleine McCann.

There are several KEY things which need to be done, even at this late stage, in order to advance this search. Funding of these things would be helpful, in expediting this stagnant case.

One of the key things is to locate Jack’s mobile phone.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04qpd7y9k0o

STOCKWELL SIX Court of Appeal – 17 July 2025

Very pleased to see a change in performance at the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Their review of the case of Errol Campbell, considered today at the High Court, was significant in obtaining Justice for this deceased convicted man, after fifty years! Yes fifty years!

https://news.sky.com/story/errol-campbell-man-jailed-after-investigation-by-corrupt-police-officer-has-name-posthumously-cleared-13397877

Congratulations Dame Vera Baird

7 July 2025.

Dear Dame Vera Baird,

7th July 2025

Dear Dame Vera Baird,

I congratulate you on your recent, appointment, as interim chairwoman of the CCRC.

I am not sure what your directive is, but my own personal experience of dealing with the CCRC, over many years, may afford you some opportunity of understanding, why I believe the CCRC has failed many, in its very purpose of existence. As you and the general public are fully aware, through high profile media coverage, the CCRC continue to endure public criticisms, when cases are successful at the court of appeal, despite previously being turned down by the CCRC as ‘without merit,’ usually years earlier.

In my experience, there are specific, common problems, which significantly cause, the failure of CCRC cases, to expedite and correctly be reviewed, with diligence. Where the appellant is convinced the CCRC decision is wrong, especially if they have researched the law themselves, this will inevitably cause, them to re apply to the CCRC. Clogging up the system of reviews even further.

All the CCRC then do, is to put an order in place, which states you will not look at any further applications, unless submitted by a solicitor. They would of course be expected to have considered if there is any ‘merit’ in the application. But without a solicitor, the appellant may still be determined that years later they are still pursuing their right of appeal in one way or another.

Three specific problems associated with CCRC case reviews.

1. Targets and Time limits set on determining and completing cases.

2. Insufficient legally qualified professionals, who can accurately and without pressure, consider cases diligently.

3. An inability of appellants to afford, or obtain legal advice (legal aid) before applying to the CCRC for a case review. This basic inability of a convicted person, to obtain legal opinion on any case of ‘merit’ is frustrating for the applicant.

The Court of Appeal has previously ruled, that any material, which can assist the defence case, and which lessens the prosecution case, must be disclosed. In my case, the CCRC decided that the Court of Appeal ruling didn’t apply. That decision by the CCRC is extraordinary. To me that application (not this current re application) was obviously never considered properly.

I understand Criminal defence law states, very clearly, where not guilty pleas are anticipated or have been entered in a court of Law, secondary disclosure must be made by the prosecution.
I hope you may find some of this helpful.

Sincerely

Ian Crosby.

Criminal Cases Review Commission – Another resignation

So Karen Kneller, who has been the CEO of the CCRC for the past twelve years, has also resigned. In January this year Helen Pitcher also resigned from her senior role in the CCRC.

Three days ago, my Member of Parliament, after chasing Karen Kneller THREE times, finally had a response from her, concerning my case. A case which the CCRC are suppose to be reconsidering, under what they have stated ‘a substantive review.’

The CCRC keep repeating they have todate, looked at my case five time. For them to have stated, I have no grounds to seek referral of my conviction to the court of appeal, on the basis that the vale of glamorgan council, failed to disclose to my solicitor, secondary material, demonstrated the decision of the CCRC, was not in line with a previous ruling made by the Court of Appeal. It would appear therefore their decision making is not inline with that of the Judiciary.

A New Dawn a New Search but will it reveal any clue?

The search which commenced this morning in Atalaia near Praia de Luz, Portugal is based around the German suspect Christian B. Is this all a matter of convenience, as he is due to be released from custody in September 2025, or do the German prosecutors actually have any hard detail which has not been disclosed to the World?

My feeling has always been, Madeleine will be found within four or five miles of the Apartment number 5a – where she was last seen.

I do not believe this latest ground search in land in Portugal, is going to reveal anything of any significance.

https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-latest-new-search-for-british-girl-who-went-missing-in-2007-to-get-under-way-in-portugal-13378427

Enderby Murders case

DNA profiling was invented by a British Scientist. In a case known as the Enderby Murders, in 1986 DNA profiling helped exonerate an ‘innocent’ suspect.

It did not help Peter Sullivan’s case, that apparently he eventually signed a confession. How ever I suspect that was made under ‘duress.’

Peter Sullivan was convicted in 1986 but went on to proclaim his innocence.

In 2016 the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) declined to refer his case to the Court of Appeal.

Questions must surely be asked, why has it taken thirty eight years, to establish Peter Sullivans DNA is NOT on the murder weapon? Didn’t the CCRC think in 2016 to establish this fact, that was nine years ago.

Court of Appeal Release a Man after 38 years in Jail!

Tuesday 13 May 2025.
Peter Sullivan has spent thirty eight years in prison, for a crime which the Law now accepts he never committed.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission, (CCRC) correctly discovered Peter’s DNA is not on the murder weapon. But WHY has it taken 38 years to discover this very simple basic FACT in this case?

httpss://news.sky.com/story/peter-sullivan-who-has-spent-38-years-in-jail-for-murder-has-conviction-quashed-13363928

POLICE and SOCIAL MEDIA

POLICE and SOCIAL MEDIA

I have been advised by Catherine, (Jack’s Mother) recent and highly distressing activity on social media, have caused the Family to involve the police. This does not involve the Facebook group page, I established, ‘So where is Jack O’Sullivan now?”

Out of respect for Jack and his family, who are trying to deal with this extremely challenging ongoing situation, I have of course agreed to the family’s request, not to post anything, at the present time, which is not already in the public domain.

The announcement on the group page, concerning Jack going on his app for an Uber, and my disclosure concerning his mobile, disconnecting from the iCloud, before leaving the party at Hotwells Road, were posted before, I was aware of the added distress the family are currently being subjected to.

The family have previously acknowledged, delays they have already experienced, may have caused this investigation, to have progress at a slower rate than they had reasonably expected.

In cases like this, there is no purpose served, in simply setting up social media pages and groups, which simply churn out the same information. That information may become subject to partial or totally inaccuracy with the passing of time. Judges frequently refer to this as ‘Chinese whispers’ Lady Lucan use to say to me ‘Red herrings.’ All this detracts from what should be the focus, and sadly hinders case progression.

The purpose therefore in setting up the Facebook group, was and continues to be, for the purpose of advancing the search for answers in Jack’s case.

Review of Case Prosecuted in 2008.

February 2025. I am very pleased to confirm, this case, which was illegally prosecuted and totally without merit, is currently under legal review.

Some individuals, with their own agenda, do not wish to consider the actual facts and background to the case, as reported at the time by mainstream media.

The case was commenced unlawfully against me, after I had made three formal complaints, against Amanda Ewington Gape a licensing officer who worked for the vale of glamorgan council.

Deceiving Magistrates before the vale of glamorgan Magistrate’s court, on the 2nd July 2008, she obtained a warrant to enter my home. If I am wrong let the vale of glamorgan council sue me. They will not sue me, because they know I can prove this to be expressly true. What then followed was unprecedented.

Facing erroneous summonses issued by the council, on the 23rd March 2009, I entered pleas of not guilty, to every summons issued against me. Subsequently in the course of recovering from a mental break down, (caused by the actions of this licensing officer) and on extremely poor legal advice from a solicitor, I was strongly advised, to amend some pleas, to guilty. I have made the more detailed facts about this case, available on this website, for some years.

The current review of this case, (happening as I post this update), will later in 2025, lead to a substantial claim, against those who sought to damage my impeccable reputation for animal welfare. Those on social media, who continue to act in ignorance of the true facts, may also find themselves facing, the same legal action for damages.

In the United Kingdom, an individual or company, can only commercially trade in animals, if they are inspected, and pass the toughest of laws, and regulations concerning animal welfare. I have always passed all such regulations for the past forty three years,

Please add this website to your favourites, so you can follow the actual facts and update, in this unique case, as this legal review progresses.

Jack O’Sullivan What you don’t know.

Jack O’Sullivan a Bristol Law Student, attended a party in the Hotwells district of Bristol on Friday 1st March 2024. The last confirmed sighting of Jack, recorded on CCTV, showed him walking up Bennett Way slip road, back towards Hotwells area, at 03:40am on Saturday 2nd March 2024.

Statistically young men who have been drinking and subsequently go missing, show they have usually ended up entering nearby water. Avon and Somerset Police believe this to be the case. His family do not agree with this.

In Jack’s case, IF he had decided to head back towards the water, then the same CCTV cameras which show him heading north of the water at 03:40am would also have shown him, then changing his mind and heading south TOWARDS WATER. there is no such evidence of this.

So what happened to Jack? Do you know? There is a substantial reward.

Email: Anonymousreward25@gmail.com

«‹ 2 3 4 5 ›»