Black Cap Murder of English Justice

James Colton - Justice Online

English Justice is Injustice

Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum

(‘no one is obliged to accuse himself)

youyube icon

Youtube Channel





His advice on my appeal against my conviction:

Download click

saltrese letter heading Contagious

Chris Saltrese paints himself as an effective lawyer dealing with false allegations.

Saltrese has a dark secret. He can be bought off.

For this privilege he will charge you a large fee!


Saltrese states:

Page 7 of his report

Such evidence as we have on the conversation between Gordon Moores and the applicant would fail on three counts. It is not capable of belief without corroboration, which is not available; and, unless it could be proved that the exchange was in the exact form alleged by the applicant, it would not be decisive; and in any event the evidence should have been adduced first time round.

The reason why this did not happen is that the lawyers acting at the time did not consider it decisive, and we have to say that they were right.

Sadly, this case has the features that render decisions of this type unappealable: no new evidence that will meet the Court of Appeal's requirements; and a properly-directed jury who have found the defendant guilty.

This does not mean that the defendant was not innocent. But it does mean that the decision cannot be appealed.



“It is not capable of belief without corroboration, which is not available; and, unless it could be proved that the exchange was in the exact form alleged by the applicant, it would not be decisive;”

THE ELDEST STEPDAUGHTER (Tracey Gore) in her Police Statement Stated:

TRACEY He, he, um, wrote it all down, he took a statement from me and he wrote it all down, with the intention with going round to him with one of his colleagues and saying to him, you know, "The girls have told their story, I've got there statements, you know, we want you to leave, you know, Sheila wants you to leave. No more be said, just go. leave
the house and go.. Um. that plan, obviously, didn't work. he didn't go. he didn't leave the house." Page 60 Tracey Gore Police Statement


and in any event the evidence should have been adduced first time round”

The trial Judge (Wiggs withheld this evidence from the jury (unknown to me at the  time). But known by my lawyers.

See my video click with the evidence


Appeal against conviction  (on the issue of guilt):  an overview of recent cases based on error or irregularity of procedure. Click to view document

Saltrese ignores that grounds of appeal, which can be irregularity of the trial procedure.

Such is his corrupted mind.

Saltrease at page 6 of his report stated:

    "it was not until the defendant put up his website in 2007 and then created another when that was taken down, that they felt the only way to stop his behaviour was to report the whole matter to the police. Do they leave you satisfied that there was a good reason for the delay that does not detract from the truthfulness of the allegation, or do you conclude that the delay contributes towards you not being sure that the defendant did what the two sisters say he did?"

The trial judge (Wiggs) is asking the jury to consider evidence, which he had withheld from them. The jury clearly had no idea as to the facts. Saltrese admits this, yet speaks in bollocks.

Indeed. The eldest stepdaughter (Tracey Gore)in her police statement admits to lying in her affidavit and when giving oral evidence at the 3 day fact finding Hearing before my divorce. Stating:

Page 48

    CD Mmm.

    TRACEY Um, on one occasion and I do, I have written this in my, it was mentioned in my, which I'll tell you about later, but my affidavit for the divorce (Um, and a big thing has been made about it on his website, so I want to explain it to you.)

    CD Yeah.
    I said in my affidavit for the divorce court that I can remember, um, being in bed in the lounge and seeing mum at the kitchen sink.

    11 22 15
    CD Okay.
    TRACEY Well, I don't know whether mum was actually stood at the kitchen sink or not.

    CD Yeah.

According to Saltrese the fact that the two stepdaughters had lied, by affidavit and when giving oral testimony under oath, at a previous trial (3 day fact finding hearing before District judge Cooper. “Is of no importance! And Is NOT grounds for an appeal.” 



Its time the activities of Chris Saltrese was looked into.

Solicitors Regulation Authority
The Cube
199 Wharfside Street
B1 1RN

The Principles

  1. uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice,
  2. act with integrity
  3. not allow your independence to be compromised,
  4. act in the best interests of each client,
  5. provide a proper standard of service to your clients,
  6. behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services,
  7. comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsmen in an open, timely and co-operative manner
  8. run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles,
  9. run your business or carry out your role in the business in a way that encourages equality of opportunity and respect for diversity, and
  10. protect client money and assets."

SRA Code of Conduct 2011 Click

SRA ID: 427899

Christopher James Saltrese

Admitted as a solicitor 15/10/92


1 Perjury.

(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . F1 for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.

Wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence:

R v. Purdy (2007) 151 S.J. C.A: the court of Appeal was of the view that the conviction was safe, notwithstanding that the trial judge had inadvertently disclosed a matter to the jury in the course of his summing up, which would not otherwise have been put before them.

The fact that the prosecution were not resisting the appeal made it problematical for the court to conclude that the conviction was safe, it was difficult to judge the atmosphere of the trial without having attended trial: 

    accordingly, notwithstanding the apparent weight of the evidence against the appellant, the conviction was quashed.

DVD Exposure

This video sent to the SRA

Saltrese on Blackmail

Blackmail Act

The damning proposition, which might settle the case, is the alleged threat of 'blackmail' implicit in the meeting of 26 January 1999: 'you give us everything you own - or we'll allege you abused us'.

The difficulty here is that, on this central claim, we have nothing other than the applicant's say-so. True, Tracey's statement to the police touches on this matter - but in a different way from the applicant.

There is no mention in Tracey' s statement of the idea that the applicant should sign over his business and property. Instead, Tracy says her representative was instructed to visit the applicant, tell him of the abuse, and say "the girls have told their story - I've got their statements.

We want you to leave. Sheila wants you to leave. No more will be said. Just leave the house and go".

On this version, the element of blackmail is absent. There is no unwarranted demand, and no extortion of property by threat. Instead, on the complainant's account, we simply have the suggestion that the matter will go no further if the applicant leaves town.

It is not as though the applicant was told the girls would make allegations of sexual abuse if he did not hand over his money. The evidence of the complainants is that they had already told their mother of the abuse some days previously, in January 1999.

Saltrese the personification

of evil!

How to prove blackmail
What is blackmail under UK law?

The criminal offence of blackmail under the s 21 of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968) is the act of making an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view to making a gain or causing a loss.

    What elements need to be established to prove blackmail?

    To prove blackmail it must be shown the defendant did the following things:

        1. made a demand;
        2. with menaces;
        3. that the demand was unwarranted; and
        4. that the defendant has a view to make a gain for himself or another or have intent to cause a loss to another.


    Does the demand have to be an express demand?

    There is no requirement under TA 1968 to show that a demand had been made expressly. If a demand is implied, this may be enough to prove blackmail


    For liability for blackmail to arise under TA 1968, the demand must be accompanied by menaces.

    A person guilty of blackmail is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 4 imprisonment (14 years maximum).

    Menaces are serious or significant threats:

        "Words or conduct which would not intimidate or influence anyone to respond to the demand would not be menaces ….but threats and conduct of such a nature and extend that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive so as to accede unwillingly to the demand would be sufficient for a jury's consideration".

    [R v Clear [1968] 1 QB 670 at 679 to 680, 52 Cr App R 58 at 69]

Imagine you are approached at your home by two men. Who state that two women have made sexual allegations against you, and therefore you must leave your home immediately, so their mother can move in to the house!

You stand your ground and tell them to fuck-off. Then days later you are threatened with your life unless you leave your home. Enabling the wife to take over the occupation of the property!

Fearing for your life you seek bed and breakfast hours after the threat and the following day you leave town (see divorce video above).

Chris Saltrese says the above is of no interest to a jury. Well fuck you Saltrese! You are a crook, a nasty pathetic excuse for a man.

UK lawyers
Home | About | Probation | Dorset Police | NEWS | Downloads | Disclaimer | The Law | Big Lie | Saltrese | Theresa May | Your Stories |