Donald Neilson The Black Panther.

[Bellman]

Thanks for that Chrism, i did have a copy of the video but it got lost during a move. I did download the full copy off youtube. I would imagine there will be a new updated version of the film in the coming years. Neilson died quite slowly, he was reported to be near death about a year ago. As part of his therapy he painted pictures with the only part of his body he could still use, his mouth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8avLimZTLs    

[iansmithofotley]

Hi Bellman,I can not comment further on Neilson’s crimes, that he was charged with, or other offences that he is alleged to have committed.There is some inaccurate information mentioned in this thread relating to ‘other offences’ that offenders may or may not have committed. ‘Other offences’ are generally crimes such as theft, criminal deception, burglary, robbery, assault wounding, criminal damage, etc., etc. In the past, these crimes were regarded as misdemeanours or felonies and some offences were only triable on indictment at Quarter Sessions or Assizes which all changed to the Crown Court system in 1971, which we still have today, albeit the Crown Courts have different tier levels to deal with different levels of crimes.Besides these types of offences, there were other more minor offences such as the majority of traffic offences, dropping litter, begging, obstructing the highway, minor nuisance offences, etc., etc. These offences were called ‘summary offences’ and were usually dealt with, in the first instance, in Magistrates Courts where the maximum amount of imprisonment was six months. Some of the less serious indictable offences, e.g. theft or criminal damage, could be dealt with at Magistrates Court, but only with the consent of the accused. After a case, where a person was found guilty, then, having regard to the previous character and previous convictions of the defendant, then the Magistrates could send the case to the Crown Court for sentence as the Crown Court could give greater sentences. Sometimes, a minor case could be found to be more serious than first thought and those cases were also committed to the Crown Court for trial of for sentence.The ‘other offences’, which I have referred to, were offences which offenders were not charged with, but were allegedly committed by a defendant and these were split into two types.Firstly - offences ‘taken into consideration’ (T.I.C.’s). These offences were offences, which were admitted by a defendant, before a trial at Magistrates or Crown Court. They were usually admitted to the Police by the defendant at or after the time that the defendant was interviewed before charge. These offences came to light because the defendant just voluntarily admitted them, the Police had information that they had committed the offence or the Police obtained other evidence such as recovering stolen goods, fingerprint evidence, evidence of an accomplice, etc., etc. Sometimes, the Police would visit a defendant in prison, on remand in custody, but before trial to sort out further charges or T.I.C.’s.The system was that the Police would interview the defendant about the ‘other offences’ and would try to obtain sufficient evidence, verbal, documentary or any other evidence, in order to justify a charge or for an offence to be taken into consideration. Eventually, all of the offences were looked at and offences to be taken into consideration would be placed on a T.I.C. schedule. The schedules would be typed up on proper T.I.C. forms and the defendant would then have to sign all the forms, admitting the offences and a wish to have them taken into consideration when finally dealt with at court.Defendants only had ‘other offences’ taken into consideration when they were pleading guilty to one or more charges. You could not have other offences taken into consideration if you were pleading ‘not guilty’.When the defendant appeared at court, charged with one or more offences, and pleaded guilty, this was the time when the T.I.C. offences were introduced to the court and the T.I.C. schedules would be passed to the Magistrate or Judge. The defendant would then be asked if they wished to have the other offences taken into consideration when they were finally dealt with. In the affirmative, then these offences would be considered along with the offences charged and the appropriate sentences were established and passed bearing in mind the defendant’s previous conduct and criminal record convictions. Offences which were T.I.C.’d were listed as such on a person’s criminal record. An example on a criminal record would show the date, court, charges convicted of, sentences imposed and then might say ‘(20 offences T.I.C.)’. Once a person had had an offence T.I.C. by the court, then they could not be subsequently charged with that offence.As mentioned by Chrism, there were some anomalies with T.I.C. offences and they were usually of the same type of offence or less serious offences than the offences charged. It was common practice for the Police to encourage defendants, who were admitting offences, which were to be charged, to admit any other outstanding offences or crimes. Often there were problems, which were detrimental to the defendant, so that they faced more serious charges than they were originally arrested for. I can give an example.I was working as a sergeant at Chapeltown P.S. around 1973, on nights. At 5.30am, an officer on my team saw a stolen car being driven in Regent Street area. He eventually stopped the car and arrested the driver. At the Police Station, the driver admitted taking the car without the owner’s consent (T.W.O.C.) but denied stealing the car. He was to be charged with T.W.O.C. and relative traffic offences (no driving licence, no insurance, etc). He was also asked about any other offences that he had committed with a view to having them taken into consideration. He admitted taking some more cars, some minor thefts and then said “Oh, and I set fire to Sheepscar House”. Sheepscar House was a large warehouse in the Roseville Road area, which had been destroyed in an arson attack, a few weeks earlier, and hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage and loss of goods was caused to the building and contents which were destroyed.The result of this was that the prisoner had to be re-interviewed about the more serious, arson charge, and he was also charged with that offence and subsequently punished for it along with the T.W.O.C., etc., other offences were T.I.C. If he had not admitted the arson offence then it would probably have remained undetected. Apart from getting a clear conscience he had not done himself any favours.Sometimes, offenders will have committed many, many offences such as stealing a cheque book with fifty cheques in it, and fraudulently using all of the cheques to buy goods. If they were caught and admitted what they had done, then it was usual for the Police to charge maybe three or four ‘specimen charges’, to show the ‘system’ of crime and the other forty five or six offences would be T.I.C. It was possible for offenders to have hundreds of offences taken into consideration when they were finally dealt with.Secondly – offences ‘written off’ (Write Offs).These offences were ‘other offences’ with which a defendant had not been charged with, or had taken into consideration at court. The courts had no knowledge of any of these offences at any stage. These offences were never charged and they never appeared on a defendant’s criminal record.The criminal laws and judicial system catered for offences, which were charged, or which were taken into consideration at court before passing sentence. It was often apparent to the Police and the Home Office that some offenders had committed many other offences, which remained undetected and were recorded on file as such in the crime statistics. Sometimes, where there is no written legislation to deal with certain matters, criminal or otherwise, the Home Office issue rules and instructions through what is known as ‘Home Office Circulars’. Each year there are many, many Home Office Circulars and start at No. 1 each year. The government can change these circulars or abolish them and issue new ones without having to go through Parliament or the courts, like they have to do for most legislation.So far as relates to ‘write offs’ their were facilities under Home Office Circulars which allowed the Police to interview defendants in prison, who were serving substantial sentences, to ‘write off’ crimes that they had committed. This was to clear up undetected crimes and, as mentioned by others, to improve detection rates. The difference with ‘write offs’, as opposed to T.I.C.’s, was that a prisoner could still be charged with a crime that had been admitted as a ‘write off’ either whilst serving a current sentence or by re-arrest and charge after being released from prison.To be honest, the system was a farce. It was abused by the Police and abused by the prisoners. The Police (and the government) used it to improve detection rates and the prisoners used it for ‘favours’ (please don’t ask) or instead of having offences T.I.C. which could have affected their sentence (by possibly increasing it). Many detectives spent many, many hours, at prisons all over the country, interviewing prisoners for ‘write off’ purposes. ‘Write off’ files could be submitted or held back and then submitted, whenever, to improve detection rates in any particular month or year.Other practical problems were created by ‘T.I.C.’s' and ‘write offs’ and often it was nobody’s fault, it was just the system that’s all. I came across it many times. What would happen is that a prolific criminal may have committed hundreds of crimes, so many, in fact that he had no idea what he had done or not done. This was particularly the case where criminals were itinerant and had committed offences all over the country in many different towns and cities and in many different Police Force areas.The problem manifested itself when an officer would arrest an offender for some crimes that he had genuinely committed. He would be charged with some offences and might have many offences, that he had genuinely committed, T.I.C. He would be sentenced at court and finish up in prison. He would then possibly be interviewed in prison about ‘write offs’. The prisoner may have genuinely committed the offences that he had had T.I.C. or had ‘written off’ and the Police may have much supporting evidence in relation to those offences which corroborated that he had committed them. There may be evidence from an accomplice, recovery of stolen goods, fingerprint evidence, etc., etc. The investigating officer would then have to retrieve the original crime reports in relation to these offences in order that they could be listed on a schedule and then recorded as detected. It was a common occurrence to retrieve crime reports and find that they had already been detected by some offender who had had offences T.I.C. or ‘written off’, even though he had probably not committed them. As I said, the system was a farce and there is no right or wrong solution to the problem and, often, nobody was to blame. There was no answer to the problem.Another issue that comes to mind when talking about ’other offences’ is the situation of the victims and complainants in crime and compensation or restitution. Usually, a crime could not be T.I.C.’d without the consent of the complainant. Some complainants would not agree to the system and requested that offenders be charged, providing that there was sufficient evidence. I am not certain but I believe that the same system applied with ‘write offs’. After crimes were detected, in any way – charge, T.I.C. or ‘write off’, it was necessary that the complainant be informed of the outcome. Sometimes, ‘other offences’ would be detected many years after they had been committed and, rightly or wrongly, there would be no useful purpose served in taking offenders back to court unless the offence was a serious one and there was sufficient other evidence apart from an admission from the offender. I might be wrong but I don't think that a court could order compensation or restitution to a complainant, unless the offender had actually been charged with the offence.Remember that we are talking about the time when Neilson was committing his crimes. I can not comment on the situation regarding ‘other offences’ today, as I am out of touch with current practices.Sorry, again, for the long post, but I hope that it helps.Ian

[Bellman]

I appreciate that information Ian, i cannot thank you enough. I do not suppose this well known man would give me any iformation on Neilson do you lol. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/aro ... _1_2553409

[iansmithofotley]

Hi Bellman,I have no idea, I suspect that it depends how much money you were prepared to pay him (like most lawyers). I had many, many dealings with Barry Black and he dominated the daily Magistrates Remand Court at Leeds Town Hall during the late 1960's/70's. He would often have as many as twenty cases there on a Monday morning (remand cases were over and done with in a few minutes, as they were adjournments, and the only thing that took time was when the police had to give evidence as to why bail should be opposed after it had been applied for). He was approachable and very flamboyant but I only ever got the impression that he was only ever out to make as much money as possible and did not really care about justice or the people involved in the judicial system, unlike one of his counterparts in Leeds, Jack Levi, who was a gentleman. I think that Mr Black mellowed as he got older and became a judge. I was once in the witness box giving evidence to oppose bail, and keep a defendant in custody, when Mr Black tore into me suggesting that I was fabricating evidence and telling blatant lies about his client. I was deeply questioned by the Magistrates and made to look a fool by Mr Black. Suddenly, he stood up in court and made an apology to the court, and myself, retracting all that he had said and then said "I am very sorry, I have picked up the wrong file and was getting mixed up with another client". At least it was a change from the usual lawyer's 'get out of jail clause' of "I am only acting upon instructions".I also remember him being rebuked by the Stipendiary Magistrate John Randolph (who also later became a judge) for wearing clothes and particularly ties which were too flamboyant and not in keeping with court dress. To be fair, Mr Black was always immaculate and a very 'natty' dresser (a 'David Dickinson' type of dresser).Ian        

[Bellman]

Great memories there and thanks for sharing them. I did see Barry once he looked as if he had just been on holiday.He also had a tan at the time to match David Dickinsons.

[jetwalking]

Hello again BellmanI made contact with someone today who used to have professional access to the library and online resources for West Yorks Police Training School, Bishopsgarth Wakefield. Although the contacts are now defunct - that person thought that if you present your enquiry to the training school that you would be given a very good reception.There will be loads of stuff contained within the library- but most importantly they are connected to the Staff Officers Library at Hampshire - and in that persons (non gender specific - we like that !! old habits die hard !!! ) opinion what is not kept in the Staff Officers Library does not exist.regards Andy

[Chrism]

iansmithofotley wrote: Hi Bellman,I have no idea, I suspect that it depends how much money you were prepared to pay him (like most lawyers). I had many, many dealings with Barry Black and he dominated the daily Magistrates Remand Court at Leeds Town Hall during the late 1960's/70's. He would often have as many as twenty cases there on a Monday morning (remand cases were over and done with in a few minutes, as they were adjournments, and the only thing that took time was when the police had to give evidence as to why bail should be opposed after it had been applied for). He was approachable and very flamboyant but I only ever got the impression that he was only ever out to make as much money as possible and did not really care about justice or the people involved in the judicial system, unlike one of his counterparts in Leeds, Jack Levi, who was a gentleman. I think that Mr Black mellowed as he got older and became a judge. I was once in the witness box giving evidence to oppose bail, and keep a defendant in custody, when Mr Black tore into me suggesting that I was fabricating evidence and telling blatant lies about his client. I was deeply questioned by the Magistrates and made to look a fool by Mr Black. Suddenly, he stood up in court and made an apology to the court, and myself, retracting all that he had said and then said "I am very sorry, I have picked up the wrong file and was getting mixed up with another client". At least it was a change from the usual lawyer's 'get out of jail clause' of "I am only acting upon instructions".I also remember him being rebuked by the Stipendiary Magistrate John Randolph (who also later became a judge) for wearing clothes and particularly ties which were too flamboyant and not in keeping with court dress. To be fair, Mr Black was always immaculate and a very 'natty' dresser (a 'David Dickinson' type of dresser).Ian         I used Mr Black once in the 70's for an affray offence, that was dropped, he was very good with the 'patter' and (to me) really did seem to care. He even visited my house for some information, out of hours, and he was there for a hour or two. Weren't his shirts his trademark? Colorful but with white collar and cuffs?

[iansmithofotley]

Hi Crism,Yes, you are correct. His shirts were another part of his flamboyant clothing and, as you say, he liked his white collars and cuffs.Ian

[Bellman]

jetwalking wrote: Hello again BellmanI made contact with someone today who used to have professional access to the library and online resources for West Yorks Police Training School, Bishopsgarth Wakefield. Although the contacts are now defunct - that person thought that if you present your enquiry to the training school that you would be given a very good reception.There will be loads of stuff contained within the library- but most importantly they are connected to the Staff Officers Library at Hampshire - and in that persons (non gender specific - we like that !! old habits die hard !!! ) opinion what is not kept in the Staff Officers Library does not exist.regards Andy Many thanks.thats probably going to be my best source of information. I have done a lot of research on Neilson but admit its like going round in circles. If i were allowed accesss to this library did this person indicate there might be anything intresting for me to find? (sorry for being cheeky) I really do appreciate what you have done already.Although i have indicated my belief that Neilson was not always alone during his crimes, this was meant more towards his earlier criminal activity. The following paragraph however is from a book, the author had access to police reports of the time. Although it does not mean much normally, you have to understand Neilson portrayed himself as a complete loner. There were a few sightings of the car TTV 454H that Was used in Leslie Whittles Kidnap. Here is one of those sightings.....Quote: At About 9.30 p.m on 15 january, about an hour before Gerald Smith was shot, a woman motorist waiting for her husband sat in their car at Trindle Road Dudley. The TTV registered Morris parked directly in front. A man and woman alighted and the waiting woman got the impression that they might have had a row for whereas they both walked down the road towards the Station Hotel, less than 100 yards from the place where the shooting took place, the man crossed towards the hotel but the woman stayed on the opposite side of the road. It was a tantalizing possibility that the kidapper could have had an acomplice.

[jetwalking]

Two things here Bellman:I can only phrase this as what I would do in your shoes.It is clear that you have done a painstaking amount of work- but that you are getting nowhere - you have to break that deadlock.1. You (or someone in the thread) makes a joke about contacting Barrington Black? I would reconsider that on these lines: Mr Black will not only consider himself a very successful individual (which he is) he will also consider himself a very educated man (reading your newspaper link- he also has a great personal affinity with Leeds Uni- Chairman of something if I recall). Great Detective work starts with - anything. Write to him, if you can't get to see him in person. Put your case to him- what can he do at the worst- say No? Think about it. He had direct and prolonged contact with Neilson. He will have known the case backwards in order to represent the man.Tell him succinctly and early on in the letter particularly what aspect of your research that you are struggling with. If you haven't got his attention within 60 seconds- you will be binned off. Set out your credentials to him - where you are studying- contacts that he can investigate. I would want to check you out before even allowing you near me (if I was him). Pre warn the uni staff that he may contact.Appeal directly and on a personal level to him i.e. you are struggling to get your Criminology degree - if there's one thing that educated people love to do it's help the struggling uneducated. Ask him specifically to help you- in fact to grant you an 'audience' to explain your position. If you get a negative response write to him again requesting that he pass you on to someone who can help.Once you have written to the above do No 2 below: 2. Trust me here I have spent a working lifetime with police. Don't contact West Yorkshire Police Training School by telephone. There is a 99.9 % chance that they will say that someone will get back to you- they are busy people and it is just not going to happen. Also it's easier, as you know, to rebuff someone who isn't actually in front of you.Appear in person. Walk straight into the Training School Reception and ask to speak to someone from the Library Resources Dept (check what it is called- because it might have changed). Look smart and act as it is the most natural thing to do in the world- don't be unnerved by the 'battalion' strength of all the uniform that will be walking around- they are under a lot more pressure than you. You have got to get the receptionist to contact someone from the library to speak to you in the first place - so be very nice to them. They will want to do that- because then you will no longer be their problem. AS BACK UP get some written proof of what you are studying i.e. a letter of introduction from your uni/ tutor/ someone with a profession and take it with you.Also carry some ID - just in case on that one day that you do walk in that they are carrying out a firearms scenario etc- which they do. (Definitely.... most definitely..... if someone points a gun at you and tells you to get on the ground..... get on the ground!!!!!!...... only joking can't resist it- black humour!!) Don't wander around trying to approach the library direct. Police follow, embrace, understand and love protocol. If you wander around they will see that as an intrusion on hallowed ground (which it is) and become suspicious of you.My contact is no longer with WYP and they didn't say what information there was - but knowing the police it will be extensive, well collated and include a lot of 'on the ground' info from the time. But there's more than 'what do they have' - what you could get here is some very professional librarians- who are connected nationally- to help you. Once you get an 'in' they will probably allow you to visit again. All sorts of different civilian enterprises visit the training school for courses etc.You are struggling because you can't get the source material that you want. That source material is probably not in the public domain. You need contacts and you need to go out and forge them.On a lighter note - if you do get locked up - you could always request the services of 'Barrington Black'. Only joking...... !!!!I only came on this website to look for some info for police collar numbers - after having my third post censored/ removed - I have decided it is not the web site for me. This is my last ramble. I have tried to help you Bellman- and I wish you all the best with your enquiries for the future- Good luck.Ian (I know that you will read this) - thank you for the interesting dialogue and information it was a pleasure to read your posts.