Site map and contents

Please note that text in red denotes my comments

A letter from DC Patterson to Chief Constable dated 28/7/86.

Dear Sir,
Further to my letter of 18th June 1986 of which I have received no acknowledgement.

On the 18th July past I had a consultation with ACC Johnston at which I was informed there was to be no further action in respect of my allegations against superiors.

A polite description of Chief Superintendent Ferguson's report is that it is disreputable and dishonourable. For the past 12 months I together with my solicitor have been endeavouring to emphasise that I have not been given an opportunity to give my side of the complaint. On 27th August 1985 Chief Superintendent Ferguson came to my home to record a formal statement of complaint but I was forced to sign a statement by him which bore no resemblance to the statement I wished to make. My solicitor and I objected strongly to this and I was eventually granted an interview with ACC Johnston and in the presence of Chief Superintendent Henry. At this interview it was agreed that I had not been given an opportunity to fully describe my complaint and ACC Johnston agreed to obtain the personal documents stolen from my home by D/Chief Inspector Wilson during a burglary on 7th August 1984. When these documents were recovered I was to be given an opportunity to make a full statement of complaint and I was assured this would be immediately after Christmas 1985. This never came about and both my solicitor and I have continually endeavoured to bring it about. Both my solicitor's requests and my own have been totally ignored.

I would now like to refer to the investigation file of Chief Superintendent Ferguson's and I shall refer to it as the 'REPORT'.

The REPORT would be fairly described as laughable if it wasn't such a serious matter and in the following paragraphs I shall elaborate.

On 18th July 1986 at my request to ACC Johnston in the presence of Superintendent McAuley we went through some of the REPORT. I pointed out serious discrepancies in the report and Mr Johnston accepted that he had been deceived by the investigating officer. Two of the many points which we agreed that he had been deceived on were:-
1. A letter which I referred to in my statement of 28th August 1985 was not in the REPORT. This letter is of great relevance. It was addressed to Chief Superintendent Moffitt. If Chief Superintendent Moffitt refuses to hand it over or denies he received it then I can supply you with a copy of it plus proof of his receipt of it.
2. There is no mention in the report that I am still in possession of spent bullet heads recovered from a shooting incident at my home on the 30th July 1980. It also transpires there is no crime report recorded in respect of this incident. Neighbours can corroborate that they were interviewed at the time of the incident and confirmed the shooting. Chief Superintendent Ferguson refused to take possession of these bullet heads, there must be some evidential value to be gained from a forensic examination of them. ACC Johnston showed similar unconcern and interest in this very relevant evidence but agreed it had not been referred to in the REPORT.

I could describe a thousand and one similar serious descrepancies in the REPORT and some of which are as follows:- 1. Property stolen from my home on the 7th and 8th August 1984 has never been returned to me.
2. Personal property stolen from my office has never been returned.
3. Personal property stolen from my office contained a casette clearly marked 'confidential' which had been referred to me by a senior officer in relation to undercover work I carried out in Cyprus in February 1984. There is a serious breach of the Official Secrets Act in the theft of this casette.
4. The REPORT made no reference to the two reports I submitted in relation to the aforementioned subject.
5. There is no mention of D/Inspector McAllister being high on drugs at the time he falsely accused me of stealing a police car on 3rd July 1984.
6. There is no mention of D/Inspector McAllister being frequently high on drugs. These drugs were prescribed drugs but his method of taking them could not logically have been directed by a doctor.
7. There is no mention of the 3-4 years work on my desk, each investigation requiring immediate attention.
8. There is no mention of the acts of my immediate superiors in the manner they frustrated my enquiries and thereby protracted investigations.
9. There is no mention of ACC Johnston's refusal or omission to record a full statement of complaint from me in December 1985.
10. There is no mention of the threats on my life by D/Inspector McAllister and other officers.
11. There is no mention of D/Chief Inspector Wilson endeavouring to coerce my wife into making a statement against me.
12. There is no mention of fingerprint or forensic evidence relating to the envelope and bullets left on my desk on 3rd July 1984.
13. There is no mention of a meeting 6 wks ago between my wife and a senior officer in the city centre where he bought her lunch and during their conversation he stated I could return to work but that I would have to forget everything which had occurred in the past 2 years and if I refused I would be paid off.
14. There is no evidence of the many letters stolen from my office during the past two years.

When I had the interview with Chief Superintendent Ferguson on 27th August 1985 I informed him I would give him good information on more serious matters if I saw that he was to make a proper and full investigation into the then complaints. This referred to serious cases of corruption within the Fraud Squad in relation to the coverup of fraud by Freemasons. As Chief Superintendent Ferguson has grossly failed to investigate my complaint there is little point in referring any further complaint to him.

I will be willing to make a statement to any senior officer other than Ferguson provided he is not a freemason. The cases I would be referring to are:-
Ergas - George Metcaffe
Property Services Agency - Several Officers.
Andrews & Company - solicitors and property developers.
Frederic Andrews - solicitors and property developers.
Case where a barrister will be witness to D/Chief Inspector Rawson and D/Inspector McAllister received gifts to take a certain line of enquiry.

I have been intimidated out of my career with the blunderings and negligence of my superiors, my marriage and family relationship has been destroyed. I have been denied and interview with H M Inspector of Constabulary which supports my allegation of a cover up.

If I am denied an oportunityb to make a full statement of complaint and fdenied an interview with H M Inspector of Constabulary then as a final protest I shall take my own life.

Yours faithfully
Mervyn Patterson

[The following is in Mr. Patterson's own hand.] Only about a quarter of the evidence is contained in the letters and statements attached to the 'REPORT'. Mr Ferguson and Mr Johnston has refused to let me give the evidence. M.P.

[This last sentence is so relevant to my whole battle for justice and is so relevant to Freddie Andrews' story. This is exactly what the RUC, Official Solicitors and others have colluded in doing all along with my family. We have the evidence too and neither the RUC nor the Official Solicitor nor solicitors nor Judges would let us present it.]


Site map and contents