Search This Blog

Sunday, 1 May 2011

"This Case Cannot Be Won - You Owe Us £6,000?" PART FIVE

Please click on the green links to read PART 1 , PART 2 , PART 3 , and PART 4 .


Don't forget, left click on the pic's to see them up close!!!

SO, here we all are scratching around for the evidence we are legally entitled to. In the previous posting I mentioned that "Nathanial's advocate is not disclosing "ALL" the evidence to his own client? OR, the powers that be are not disclosing all the evidence to his Advocate?" Indeed, Nathanial's sister had to supply Nathanial's Advocate (A. Clarke of Le Gallais & Luce) with photographs of Nathanial's injuries that she herself had taken!!! Nathanial's Advocate stating that he had no photographs of the injuries? Clearly, the prosecution, and/or the police had failed to pass on this evidence. This point was also made to the judge when Nathanial changed his plea to NOT GUILTY. The prosecutor, Advocate Julian Gollop, then jumped up and stated that the other photographs were not relevant to the case and that the three photo's we had received were the only ones deemed important. I wonder why?


The straight red line would indicate
 being struck with something

We initially had some trouble getting hold of the Royal Yacht Hotel CCTV footage from the police, the incident was caught on their camera at the back of the premises. I instructed Nathanial to go to the police station with a letter explaining that he was defending himself and requested full disclosure of all the evidence, and to get a receipt for the letter.


Perhaps restraint marks
 Some time later we received from the police, a copy of the Royal Yacht CCTV footage. Nathanial's sister was then in a telephone conversation with a lady from one of the police units evidence section. This lady went absolutely ballistic that we had been given a copy of the CCTV and told Maria that we had no right to have this evidence??? She also demanded to know who had passed it on to us! Very peculiar behaviour given the fact that Nathanial was defending himself and had every right to see and study this evidence for himself?


This we believe is a boot mark, left side of the body

Because of what we had discovered after viewing the CCTV footage, namely that as soon as the police had appeared on the scene, the footage we were viewing suddenly stopped! Now here's the trick, we know that the camera's at the Royal Yacht run continuously as we have a friend who works there who was able to confirm this. SO, our next question is why did the footage stop as soon as the police appeared on the scene? It wasn't long before we found out WHY!!! We then viewed the other pictures that had previously been denied us, and which had now confirmed my suspicions.


Perhaps the result of a foot stomping lackey?

Having carefully viewed the CCTV many times, it had become clear to me that NO kicks had come from Robert Paul Mallett towards Nathanial during the incident. It was also quite clear from the CCTV footage that no one else had kicked Nathanial during the incident, and that was the case up until when the police took hold of Nathanial, THEN THE FOOTAGE ODDLY STOPS! I have certainly had experience of missing CCTV footage in my time, and suspected that a police assault was behind matters.


I would be stunned to know that this is not a boot mark!!!

It is also interesting to note the words of the Police Surgeon - Dr Mandy Louise Johnson, who states in one excerpt "he had a possible shoe impression 8 cm x 8 cm to the left shoulder" (picture above). This particular bruise when viewed, clearly shows the shape of a shoe or boot heel, and part of the sole. It stands out because of the shape of the bruising around the unmarked skin in the middle. When someone receives a sharp hard blow, the blood immediately flows out of the area as it is compressed, then the bruise is formed where the blood stops flowing. Another example of this is the picture directly above. In my view, Nathanial has been stamped on as the shoulder injury could have only happened when he was face down on the floor, this would be when the CCTV inexplicably ceased to reveal anything else after the police are seen arriving. Nathanial also remembers the police either standing or kneeling on the side of his face when he was on the floor, as his bite wound was pressed onto the road very hard. I would suggest that this is when he started struggling as he was being kicked and stamped on by the police. The Police Surgeon signs off with the phrase "the bruises may have been from kicks", after all, she would know best I guess.

The police surgeon also makes mention of a "bruise on the right side of his chest" Of course, we would love to show you this picture, but alas, we have not been furnished with it???

My final submission on part five is the fact that Nathanial, and others, remember between six and eight policemen in attendance at his arrest. However, we have only ever received two statements from arresting police officers, these were from PC 336 Danny Craven and PC 251 Tristan Le Marquand (does anyone know if this is a relative of Home Affairs Minister - Ian Le Marquand?). Nathanial however, was told by Detective Paul Moisan, and another police officer, that it had taken "SIX OF HIS OFFICERS" to put Nathanial down??? We are still waiting for the rest of the statements in this regard, no surprises there then.

So, "IF" there were only two Police Officers in attendance? even The States of Jersey Police might be able to work out who beat and kicked Nathanial, and pretty bloody sharpish too!!!

I shall leave the rest for you 'good people' to ponder on, until the next instalment!

6 comments:

  1. Ian.

    Good old "Jersey Justice" (not to be mistaken with "Justice") strikes again???

    This young lad takes a severe beating, possibly left with life long physical and emotional scars. There are question marks as to whether the cops gave him a kicking.............and the AG prosecutes HIM!!!!!!!!!????????

    ReplyDelete
  2. From the evidence I have studied, those question marks are very minute....All we are lacking is the video that the police have cut from the CCTV footage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And I will wager that the Deputy Chief Officer, Barry Taylor, informs us that it can be obtained through a Court Order!

    ReplyDelete
  4. How do things stand at the moment.

    It seems strange that the video should suddenly have stopped recording at such a crucial time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Trust me anon, there is nothing strange about it.

    As matters stand, we are 'still' waiting for full disclosure of the evidence, something we were promised in the Royal Court.

    ReplyDelete