Search This Blog

Saturday, 15 October 2011

"Malfeasance In The Courtroom!!!"

Does The Evidence Stack Up?
And Are There Other Issues Here?
When Rose asked her lawyer if she should appeal her conviction, she was told not to bother and save her money as "A JERSEY JUDGE WOULD NEVER UNDERMINE ANOTHER JERSEY JUDGE."
THAT'S JERSEY JUSTICE FOR YOU!!!


Please click on the pic to read it


A Letter From Rose Shepherd

Hi Rico, so sorry for taking so long to e mail you. It's been a very difficult few weeks since I was found guilty. Anyways I'm being sentenced tomorrow and it may be a custodial so wanted you to have the facts surrounding my conviction.
Back in April, I left my friends house at midday on the Sunday morning after inviting my mum for lunch. I'd been receiving verbally abuse e mails from an ex throughout the evening. While leaving my friends flat I was approached by a friend who had said that my ex was in the Beau Rivage the night before and claimed to have taken naked photos of me when I was asleep and was going to put them on Facebook. As you are aware I've **** ***** and this totally made my head bounce around like a ping pong ball!!! On arriving at my home at approx 5 mins past 12 I started drinking as couldn't cope with what I'd just heard. (Never the answer but hind sight is a great thing!!!) Then at approx 1.15pm a police officer turned up to say that they had received an anonymous phone call (I believe this to be my ex) saying I'd got into my car apparently under the influence. NOT TRUE I didn't touch a drop till I got home. Anyways, it took six months to get to trial. The states analyst said in his report I was under the limit when I drove. The police officer admitted in court that he didn't give me time to find and show him the wine bottle but just arrested me. He then admitted in court that when he asked his superior for a warrant to search my house for the bottle of wine, said bottle was in the back of his police car the whole time. He was issued with an article 20 warrant (This is for serious offences only) and was therefore issued with this illegally and my house searched illegally. All the police evidence was thrown out of court. My advocate then asked Bridget Shaw to stand down as she had heard illegal evidence and there should be a re-trial. she said she would 'forget she had heard it'!!! Rico I was still found guilty despite all this and also the fact I was never even caught in my car and the police didn't come round for over an hour after I got home....... I'm so confused and don't understand how the establishment can get away with things like this. Please, please let me know your feelings If it's easier please call me or text me. I'm scared they put me in prison!!!! Thanks Rico

Please see the Rico Sorda Blog for other revelations in this case

13 comments:

  1. Ian, this is sick and we all need to do something to get this Lady home with her children. I trust Rico and if he says she is telling the truth then that is enough for me! the Jersey police are out of control. My daughters home was entered last night by apparently six, yes six police officers because the dog was barking and no one was home. What the "F" is going on in this island!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sometimes silence is the best answer!!!

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. ??????????!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. All we need now is for the courts to let Niall Linden out of the island and the Jersey way is finished.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Does "flies on shit" mean anything to you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. On average 3,000 people are killed or seriously injured each year in drink drive collisions.

    Nearly one in six of all deaths on the road involve drivers who are over the legal alcohol limit.

    Approximately half of convicted drink drivers have blood alcohol levels in excess of 150mg%. Around 12 per cent of convicted drink drivers are convicted of a second offence within ten years.

    It's unlikely that she was convicted without evidence. If she was four times over the limit then she deserves to go to prison, especially if it was her second conviction.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jersey police are scum I know of an idendical case where a person had been home for 3 hrs and had had a drink on arrival at her home the police came as stated above and she was charged with drink driving and found guilty so as it stands the police could knock on your door at any time day or night and if you have had a drink charge you with DIC and our currupt judges would find you guilty THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN JERSEY !!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "If she was four times over the limit then she deserves to go to prison, especially if it was her second conviction."

    I couldn't agree more anon "IF" she was "Driving" and over the limit.


    "It's unlikely that she was convicted without evidence."

    This is Jersey anon, and from my own experiences, it is "Highly Likely" that she was convicted with no evidence. Once you have given a court jurisdiction over yourself, they can do what they will with you, that is the plain simple truth.

    If a cop says you are guilty, you are guilty, and because you have consented to jurisdiction, you cannot have any complaints.

    It is hard for a lot of people to take in, but those are the facts. If you do your due dilligence at law the truth will become inescapabley clear....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon, it is untrue and unfair to say that all policemen are scum. I know a number of very good, honest, decent police officers with a sense of justice and integrity.

    When we use the label "ALL" we become as bad, if not worse, than the rotten ones.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is medically proven that alcohol does not affect your body until it enters your bloodstream. Assuming you only drink the stuff it has to leave the stomach and enter your intestines before it's absorbed in to blood stream and it's effect become noticable.

    This whole 'count back' theory they use to prosecute those found at home some time after driving is a fallacy. We are all individuals and process alcohol at different rates depending on what we have eaten, our weight, past history of drinking etc. In other words there are so many variables it's not possible to prove as fact that person X would have had a alcohol reading of Y at any time previous to when you test them.

    It simply does not stack up but in order to safely convict those who have driven drunk, crashed and then got home it's make sense for the legal system to convince us of the scientific methods of 'count back'

    ReplyDelete
  11. Its a bulls*** law, you cannot prove anyone has drink drove if they are not in the car!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "It's a bullshit law"

    It's "NOT" law, it's bullshit.


    Secondly, quite correct, no proof unless they have witnessed it themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I ask this question out of my own ignorance as I never drink wine, but is it possible to become 4 times over the limit by drinking one bottle of wine?

    ReplyDelete