Inability To Adequately defend myself + subject access requests and ICO

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

A zip file of all the letters on this page can be downloaded here: https://www.mediafire.com/file/4bevegms84nb36e/Files.7z/file

Firstly I think a misconception by many people is that in court you have to prove yourself to be innocent and that 'not guilty' means innocent.

This is not the case.

It is down to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, the defense's job is to introduce the doubt.

I am in a position of having to defend myself against the claims of Charles Dunnavant who is a proven liar.

It is clear from the few things i picked up in my police interviews that he fed them certain information in an attempt to steer blame away from himself and onto me.

These are just the few issues I can plainly see, without knowing what else he might of said.

The evidence on my computer equipment, particularly on one specific device would back my narrative up as well as contradicting Charles Dunnavant's, show he is a liar and allow cross examination questioning to this effect.

A very concerning issue is what happened to my 1TB external hard drive.

I have no doubt whatsoever that The police, especially those in the USA would not want me or my defence to have access to what this drive contained as it would totally contradict things they and others have claimed and totally undermine the narrative they are so desperate to maintain.

This hard drive contained crucial data.

It is these and potentially others, I cannot yet know I would need that I would be relying on and will be categorically stating I would need for my defence in the USA, including:

Almost 2 decades of references as a child-carer (to demonstrate my character, ability and experience with children)
Chat logs regarding working for Carl Herold, me telling Carl and Charlie to educate the child and send him to school and social groups, general chat about my visits etc
Chats logs demonstrating the aggression, threats and Charlies attitude towards me and him not wanting me interfering when I have concerns about the child.
Details of my itinerary and where I traveled to and stayed in USA and when
Emails and documents regarding work I would be carrying out for Carl's business
Pictures and videos of the child outside with me learning to ride his bike, with comments from passers by and neighbours; playing unsupervised with and around other children on the local playground and in other locations.

(I managed to rescue aa couple from an icloud backup as proof they existed - (face of the child in the pictures obscured so he is not identifiable and the video has also been edited for the same reason)

Pictures taken (metadata) May and November 2013

Video recorded (metadata) 2013:10:29 13:13:17-05:00

Applications I had and/or used

The applications I used is relevant because in early court documents and statements from the USA it mentions applications they say I was a user of such as TOR, which I did have on the external drive but in interview I stated I barely used it, and of course what I used it for could easily be verified just by looking on the external hard drive and the application.

An application called TORCHAT was also mentioned by the UK and USA police who say I was a user of this, when I was not, nor was it on any device.

USA Authorities:

UK Authorities:

Although conveniently in later statements this does not appear and the chat app name is removed and it simply states 'chatted over the internet'.

This has been done because they know full well this was not on any of my devices, I did not ever have or use it.

I am now in the potential position of having to defend myself without any of this crucial defence information.

All it is now is my word against others, where as with the data from my hard drive it would be their word against mine PLUS being able to back up what I say with evidence or being able to contradict their claims.

I have no idea what other claims could be made about me or about my equipment use during a trial in a USA, but it is clear from the little I do know, that they are now able to dictate the narrative and other than my word I have nothing to present.

There is a big difference between a case where it is simply one individuals word against another or others; and a case where it is one individuals word against another and one of them has actual evidence to present.

Conclusion:

As I stated to my solicitors, I proved I had nothing to do with any illegal usage of the Macbook, and I would also have done this if the opportunity hadn't been taken away from me, with the external hard drive.

The UK were in regular contact with the USA, I know this because on each visit to the police station I was clearly meant to overhear conversations by nearby officers and also had information passed onto me during what is called 'disclosure', that is before interviews when your solicitor passes relevant information onto you that has just been disclosed to him by the police.

I believe the police had a major dilemma:

If they provided the external hard drive to anyone independent it would prove the current charges against me to be false AND I would also then have the data to contradict their claims and narrative in the USA as well as strengthen my credibility and reduce the credibility of those who may testify against me.

Anything Lee Morgan Lewis had intentionally done to the device would also be exposed, (it has already been established from the Macbook that at best he did not do his job properly and at worst he willingly overlooked data that would have cleared me).

I believe the police had no other choice but for the external hard drive to be 'dropped'.

Request for the original images of my equipment from NCA, plus letter to CPS and Suffolk police.

Since the 'someone' has damaged my equipment meaning I am unable to adequately defend myself, I request from the NCA the original images that should have been taken by Lee Morgan Lewis.

This of course would enable me to have access to my original computer data that I require and also compare the original images with the current images of my equipment the police still hold, to be sure nothing else has been tampered with, since one device has been 'dropped' and another was accessed after being seized.

This is the response I get:

This means I am now being denied access to a copy of my own PC data, when they were the ones who damaged the original.

So I write to the Information Commissioners Office:

The reply I get is the ICO stating the NCA do not have to provide the requested data.

I also write to the CPS (via online complaints form) because I learn that unused material has not been provided in my previous case and it could be useful: