SO, here we go with part three, and the oddities begin!
Nathanial Le Corre savagely bitten and his eyes gouged at by Robert Paul Mallett, left the police station UNCHARGED after the case had been looked into by C.I.D officer Paul Moisan. Mallett was charged with Grave & Criminal Assault and the case was sent up to the Royal Court as Mallett had used his teeth as a weapon.
Officer Paul Moisan had spent a day finding Mallett's brother, who was a witness and managed to get hold of Robert Mallett the day after that. There were also two independent witnesses one of which made a statement, the other, the son of a friend of mine, was to scared to be a witness after seeing what Mallett was capable of.
At some point in the proceedings the prosecutor (Julian Gollop) and the Attorney General (Tim Le Cocq) in their wisdom, had decided that Robert Paul Mallett should "NOT" stand trial for Grave & Criminal Assault??? His charge was then downgraded to "A BREECH OF THE PEACE"!!! Incredible as this next part is, the Attorney General then decided that Nathanial Le Corre should ALSO be charged with breech of the peace? The Attorney General got word to Detective Paul Moisan to charge Nathanial with breech of the peace, and again, Paul Moisan REFUSED to charge Nathanial with any crime in relation to this incident. Subsequently, Detective Paul Moisan then found himself back on the beat!!! I wonder why?
|Left click on the pic to read|
SO, Mallett went to court for breech of the peace and pleaded "NOT GUILTY"??? CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? He has just got away with a few years in jail by having his charges dropped from Grave & Criminal Assault, and he pleads NOT GUILTY to a breech of the peace. I would suggest that anyone in their right mind would have been over the moon at only having to face a breech of the peace charge for the damage inflicted on Nathanial! Yet Mallett goes not guilty, is this sheer arrogance or something more sinister?
Mallett is then sent for trial in the Royal Court and gets ACQUITTED of breech of the peace!!!
The prosecution only asked one question of the independent witness, and that was "did you see Mallett run at Le Corre?" The witness replied "YES I DID, that is exactly what happened". Strangely enough though, the independent witness's statement was very damning to Mallett's defence, but was never used in court??? The judge when summing up, tells the jury this one question for them to ponder on...."if you think Mallett went willingly into the fight then he is guilty, if you do not think he was willing, then he is innocent" ????????????
So, Mallett has gotten away Scott free with his disgusting assault on Nathanial, and Nathanial was now standing as the victim, and the only person who would be punished in this case as he had been instructed by his lawyer to plead guilty!!! According to someone who attended court, Mallett was sat there with a smug grin on his face throughout the proceedings. Did he already know he was not going to be found guilty? Could the jury have been rigged? A few ringers thrown in there to make sure there were not sufficient numbers to find him guilty by a majority? Why was he (on the face of it) looking like he was being protected?
A commenter on part two left a clue to Mallett's remarkable escapology feats, and I quote: