Search This Blog

Friday, 15 February 2013

"Woman Jailed For 5 Months After Report Is Ignored"

"Another Shocking Indictment Of A
Corrupt System"

This little story sees Magistrate Bridget Shaw back under the spotlight yet again!

Practicing law from the bench without having any regard for the evidence.


Rose Shepherd was accused of drink driving yet she states that she did not have a drink prior to driving that day. Her home was unlawfully invaded by police with an illegal search warrant that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.


This is the garbage written by the JEP

There was also some connivance on the part of the police with regard to the evidence, e.g a wine bottle. The police entered the home of Rose Shepherd amid the claim (anonymous phone call to the police) that she had been driving whilst under the influence of alcohol. Rose was adamant that she had not, yet freely admitted to having drank some wine on her return home whilst she was preparing dinner for her mother.

The police asked her to produce the wine bottle and the glass she had been drinking from, however, Rose could not find the bottle or the glass!

Why ever not?

Well, the police had swiped the bottle and glass and hidden it in the back of the police car without her knowledge, why would they do this if not to stitch her up?

Why would they want to stitch her up?

It may just have something to do with the fact she happened to be dating John Welsh, Curtis Warren's alleged right hand man. Rose, who would not have known what was alleged to have been going on with regards to Warren and Welsh, was obviously unable to assist the police with their inquiries in this regard and this appears to be the motive for their little vendetta.

Also worthy of note is the fact that when Rose was going to her car she saw her ex boyfriend, who just by chance had been sending her vicious text messages the night before. He also used the phrase "It's who you know"....now why would he say that?

The police later came back to her home with an unlawful search warrant, and whilst no one else was present, this was for the purpose of searching for the bottle and glass that they had already stolen from her home. Rose firmly believes that they were actually searching for drugs, they obviously didn't find any as Rose has nothing to do with drugs.

Rose was breathalyzed and charged with drink driving and later appeared in court. When the court heard that the warrant was illegal, the case was adjourned, the court later reconvened and the illegal warrant was no longer an issue for some inexplicable reason. Bridget Shaw was asked to recuse herself from hearing the case any further, which she refused to do.

The official States Analyst was called in by the prosecution to do a report about the alcohol level found in Rose Shepherd's system, he concluded from the evidence that she was not over the drink drive limit at the time of driving, which limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.

The legal alcohol limit for drivers in the UK is:
  • 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath
  • 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood
  • 107 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine



Bridget Shaw continued with the case ignoring the fact that the warrant was unlawful, and took no notice of the evidence given by the States Analyst. Rose was found guilty simply on the arbitrary opinion of the Magistrate, Bridget Shaw, and was locked up for five months and banned from driving for four years. To date, there has been no proof of the alleged anonymous phone call, or any recording of it. Rose has never seen a statement from any of the police officers either!

Rather convenient isn't it?


The States Analysts report is below.











"Jersey, World Leaders In Corruption!"



14 comments:

  1. Another one convicted on absolutely no evidence, when will it end.

    ReplyDelete
  2. After reading Nicholus Hubbards statement, it is clear that this lady was not over the limit he should know being a man of science and fact.

    This is clearly a miss carriage of justice and the compensation that Rose Shepherd for five months inside will be considerable. Advocate Sinel is not afraid of the establishment, want some easy money Phillip ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. After the way Rose was treated by her Advocate she will never be employing a Jersey Advocate again, that's for sure!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rose used to work as a civilian at the police station, she may of even worked with Bridget in the legal advisers office? Maybe she had previous access to the inner workings of the drug squad and was useful for this reason, maybe this was personal......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am informed that Rose was in accounts and had no access to anyone or any information.

      Delete
  5. The States Analyst's report is a supposition based on the woman's claim that she drank 2 bottles of wine in an hour after arriving home. That's a lot of wine - about one full glass every 6 minutes. I can understand someone knocking back a couple of whiskys, or having a couple of spliffs when they get home after a night out, but 10 glasses of wine in an hour is a trifle over endulgent

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm? 10 full glasses in an hour? Don't know where you are buying your wine from anon but you are certainly getting a fuller bottle than anyone else does! My recollections of buying wine is that you get just under four small glasses of wine out of a bottle, not five "FULL" glasses as you state, and even that depends on the size of the glass.

      If she had drank alcohol before driving, would the estimate from the States analyst not be higher?

      Why did our bent cops not breathalyze her at 1.05pm when they first encountered her? Why leave it another one and a half hours to do a breath test? I'll tell you why, that would give them more time for the alcohol to get into her system and guarantee her to be over the limit, that's why.

      Now, the accused should be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, please point to one scrap of evidence that shows her to be guilty, or even more so, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Are you suggesting that a spurious accusation from an embittered ex boyfriend by way of an anonymous phone call, and who was abusing her the previous night via text messages, is the extent of the evidence against her?

      Our police, for the most part, are totally corrupt and have been stitching people up like this for many decades because they can, they get away with it because there is simply no one to answer to for their actions. I have proved this in my own cases over the last 24 years. Our judges are no better than the cops, they lie and cheat everyone. No better case demonstrates this than Bridget Shaw's utter criminality in Stuart Syvret's data protection fit up, the crazy woman should be in St Saviours, never mind jail....

      Delete
    2. And Haworth, I'm not posting your crap, however nicely you try and dress it up these days to make it look as though it's someone else's comment, your a tit and your pathetic messages are so easily spotted, go grab a few beers to keep you going till it reaches Stella O'clock :)

      Delete
  6. Anonymous @ 10.05am this incident was a Sunday lunch time and not after a night out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ian this is so bad if i can help i will i dont have much but if i can i will. regards martin. im sure you have my email if not let me know

    ReplyDelete
  8. Where is the evidence that the police took the bottle and glass from the house? Can you post the statements from all involved so we can give informed opinion please?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Questions, Bottles or half bottles,and why did the Police alledgedly only take one empty bottle away?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, if we had some statements from any of the police we could have put them up, but you obviously didn't read the main posting....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Make sure she lodges an appeal, if there was no full disclosure then that was a serious error in the proceedings and a breach of ECHR Article 6

    ReplyDelete