Misinformation can affect an investigation at any stage of its proceedings often before it has been established that any crime has been committed at all. In my case this was very obviously a significant influencing factor before the cause of fire had even been ascertained and will be referred to in my section on 'expert witnesses'.

Misleading information has a seriously detrimental effect on any investigation and primarily comes from witness accounts though the reasons for this can be varied. In all fairness to the police force we have to recognise that if, particularly at the beginning of their involvement they are told things which have no basis in fact, the route their enquiries take will be inevitably led down a one way street the wrong way. Having said that, they have a responsibility to corroborate any such information before acting on the assumption that everything that has been divulged is the gospel truth and all other avenues should continue to be looked into with an equally open mind. Sadly often this is not the case and 'confirmation bias' takes effect. In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. Anyone wishing to explore how dramatic an effect this can have will find a wealth of documentation on the internet which demonstrates clearly how the most professional of people can be influenced adversely under these conditions. Wikipedia provides a more detailed explanation of this type of affect and corroborates it with an extensive list of miscarriages of justice worldwide caused by it including the evidence of forensic experts once you have read these two pages I'm sure you will be persuaded.Witnesses can provide false accounts due to a range of motives, simply because they are mistaken or since they themselves have been mislead prior to giving statements.

• Malicious intent is one conclusion that is easy for me to come to since the misdirection provided in my case could have no other plausible purpose. In this instance the reliability of the witness and the details obtained should be scrutinised thoroughly to assess the reliability before proceeding with that line of enquiry. To that end any information provided as to the character of the witness must be carefully noted, certainly their own actions and behaviour has to be taken into account. Sadly 'evidence' of this nature is all too often seen as a lead rather than a potential red herring. Reasons for providing false evidence in this manner are hard to isolate but the main two are that either the source is deliberately trying to incriminate someone spitefully or that they are trying to distract attention from themselves with the former being the most obvious in my particular case though I believe the latter is more common.

• Malicious intent can also be the cause of other witnesses being mislead either directly or indirectly prior to questioning. For example, if someone was to make a suggestive and defamatory remark about the prospective accused in the presence of other witnesses it would influence their perspective on the overall situation and hence off balance the answers they are likely to provide themselves. Beyond that those witnesses in turn will following the drama discuss their own now tainted accounts with people they know who if later questioned will have an even more influenced point of view. In this instance the derogatory comments of one person appears afterwards to have been corroborated by the opinions of others. Having said that, a witness being mislead before being interviewed does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the malicious intent of others. It could simply be that they have misunderstood something they have heard or seen previously which has had an effect on their perspective or that prior unrelated gossip has caused them to hold an opinion that they wouldn't otherwise have.

• Then of course there is the more innocent explanation, the witness has simply been mistaken. Some people can wake in the morning and at night be able to clearly recollect anything they are asked about what happened that day with amazing accuracy. Others wouldn't be able to recall what colour socks they put on 30 minutes after doing so and would only know if they looked. Some would be able to describe which sock they put on first but have no idea what colour a car was if it narrowly missed them.

• So with the initial stages of an investigation now heavily directed by flawed and misappropriate accounts, those responsible for leading the resulting enquiries will due to confirmation bias seek to prove what they now believe to be the case using 'expert witnesses', interviewing more potential witnesses and possibly re-interviewing previous witnesses who's information does not concur with the now intended conclusion. This is where the most startling misleading takes place, by the police themselves! Expert witnesses no matter what field they are in will require some degree of information surrounding an incident in order to concentrate their scientific efforts more effectively or to make a subjective assessment of what possibilities their own results yield. However the input they will receive is now heavily weighted by the outcome the investigating officers are expecting to hear and details which could be vital (as was the case with me) will either be hidden from them or simply never divulged which can only ever sway the opinion of the expert towards that of expected result.

New witnesses will be asked questions that could enhance the case but facts that would prove the opposite will be avoided and if spoken of are often not noted. Despite many important remarks being made by witnesses in the investigation that lead to my arrest, when they found out I had been charged the gravity of what was known not to have been noted was then evident. Significant details overlooked and never noted. The most appalling of which became clear during my trial. Whilst on remand I had been puzzled by my daughter's statement, it was jumbled and didn't really make much sense which was strange because she is such a bright and gifted girl. Yet her statement was largely opposite of what happened. Her testimony when questioned via video link by the prosecution was largely muddled and I'll never forget the comment she made when asked why something she said was different to what she was asked to confirm - "There was a lot I was supposed to say, I must have forgot that bit" . When questioned by my Q.C. Jack Davidson her answers were instantly clearer and more precise, it was obvious to all how certain she was as she confirmed everything I had said from day one. With the prosecution in a bad position they now had to suggest her testimony was wrong and her statement was the real version but despite several attempts which I felt were quite forceful for a 6 year old to endure she remained fixed. I have always been proud of her but never more so than now, not after everyone saw her response to the prosecutions final effort by Jock Thomson-"Why didn't you say these things to the police lady?" Her answer was sure, resolute and unquestionably sincere, she put both hands firmly and abruptly down onto the table in front of her, looked straight at the camera with how dare you expression and firmly announced, "I did tell her, I did say those things!" Something the media seem to have neglected to note.

Never forget that misleading is not only achieved by stating things that are wrong, it also results from not noting that which is true as my case clearly shows.