Search This Blog

Tuesday, 2 April 2013

"THE MALEFICENT SEVEN" - How The Bandits Operate - PART 1 - The Perjury

"Investigating Allegations Of Perjury"
&
"The Plausible Deniability Game"


Click On The Pic For The Stars & Their Roles

As many readers are aware, Cyril complained that two police officers at his trial for parking infractions on the 27th April 2012, had perverted the course of justice and committed perjury, these officers were PC 252 Mark O'Neill and PC 283 David O'Brien.

Cyril subsequently wrote a letter of complaint to Inspector A. Bisson of the States of Jersey police on the 27th June 2012 detailing his allegations, and providing the Inspector with the means with which to prove the perjury. The letter is below for your perusal.




Cyril was then informed that an officer had been assigned to look into this complaint, and would be in touch in due course. Cyril was invited to Police HQ to give a statement to DI Mike Smith and DS Sam Smith.

DS Sam Smith proceeded to write out Cyril's statement in her own words. Later on that afternoon Cyril phoned Police HQ after reading carefully the statement that DS Sam Smith had written, this was to make arrangements to go back to Police HQ to write out another statement as he was not happy with some of the things she had written.

The next day Cyril returned to write his own statement and was informed that all the relevant paperwork would be put before the Jersey Police Complaints Authority for their consideration in due course.

Some time later, Cyril received from the Attorney General, Tim Le Cocq, a letter dated the 27th November 2012 with regard to his complaints against the two officers. The letter effectively states that there is insufficient evidence to institute proceedings against either of the officers.

But....What exactly does the letter really say?




The above letter begins with the heading....

1. "Complaint against Police"
1.a. Note how it does not state how many police (if more than one, that it refers to)
1.b. Note how it does not stipulate which complaint/complaints
1.c. Note how it appears to refer to perhaps only one complaint
1.d. Note how no particular officer is mentioned

It then goes on to say....

2. "I have received a file of papers"
2.a. Note that the comment refers only to "a file of papers"
2.b. Note how the term does not identify what papers are being referred to
2.c. Understand that these papers could have been about anything to do with the case

We then have the following....

3. "In connection with the investigation into your complaint in relation to the court hearing"
3.a. Note how the words "In connection with the investigation" could mean any aspect of the hearing
3.b. Also note that the word "complaint" is singular
3.c. Remember that there were two complaints against both officers

It goes on to say....

4. "The papers have been referred to me"
4.a. Again, no stipulation as to which papers he is referring to
4.b. No clue as to who these papers may refer to
4.c. No information as to what information these "papers" contain

In the next part we are given some small indication....

5. "for a decision as to whether criminal proceedings should be instituted against the officers concerned"
5.a. Finally we have some indication that this process is referring to more than one officer

Then we have....

6. "The papers have been carefully considered"
6.a. Again, what are "the papers" that have been considered?
6.b. Does "carefully considered" simply mean that "the papers" were read without mistake?

And finally, the punchline....

7. "I have decided not to institute criminal proceedings against either of the officers involved in this matter as I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute them for any offence"
7.a. Why does the Attorney General not let us know the contents of "the papers" that he is considering?
7.b. This is the crux of the matter "I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute them for any offence" could it possibly be that the Attorney General has not been furnished with the incriminating evidence that so obviously shows that Cyril's complaints are utterly meritorious of prosecution?


Summary....

The use of ambiguous and deceptive words is vital in understanding how the Jersey judicial machine operates. Any Joe on the street would have read the Attorney General's letter above, and simply given up thinking the Attorney General to be an honourable man who had looked into this case properly. Big mistake!

The strategy with which to prove these two policemen guilty of perverting the course of justice and perjury, is that simple and self evident, an eight year old child could deduce it. How strange then, that the Attorney General appears all lost at sea on this one?

Of course, The A.G's get out of jail free card will be the plausible deniability route. The investigating officers never furnished me with the correct material pertaining to the case, what am I to do without access to the correct evidence? This course of action would, however, entangle another two police officers in this intricate web of deceit.

All that is required is for the Attorney General to order that the pocket notebook of PC 252 Mark O'Neill be produced on the relevant page entry of the 13th of April 2012. This then to be cross referenced with their written statements, and in conjunction with the court transcripts of their sworn testimonies to the court. Not rocket science is it Mr Tim Le Cocq?

So....we put that very scenario to the Jersey Attorney General himself.


Cyril Vibert
c/o 10 Haut de la Rue Farm,
St. Martin,
Jersey.
28th March 2013
Mr T.J. Le Cocq.
Attorney General,
Law Officers Dept.,
Morier House,
St. Helier,
Jersey.

FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD

Dear Mr Le Cocq,

With reference to your letter of 27th November 2012 in which you state:

“I have received a file of papers from the States of Jersey Police in connection with the investigation into your complaint in relation to the court hearing at Jersey Magistrate’s Court on the 27th April 2012. The papers have been referred to me for a decision as to whether criminal proceedings should be instigated against the officers concerned.”

You go on to say:

“The papers have been carefully considered and I have decided not to institute criminal proceedings against either of the officers involved in this matter as I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute them for any offence.”

With all due respect sir I find your response to be nonsense.

PC O’Neill’s Police notebook entry of the 13th April 2012 together with his and PC O’Brien’s written statements and the transcripts of their testimony in court on 27th April 2012 prove beyond any doubt that they both lied whilst under oath in court.

Therefore I must ask you to answer the following 4 questions;

1) Is lying in court whilst under oath perjury?

2) Did you read the entry in PC O’Neill’s Police notebook dated 13th April 2012?

3) Did you read PC O’Neill’s and PC O’Brien’s written statements and the transcripts of their testimony given in the Magistrate’s Court on 27th April 2012?

4) Do you think prosecuting Police Officers for evidenced perjury to be in the public interest?

I realise that it has been a few months since you reviewed the file of papers you received from the Police, however I am confident that you are a competent and diligent public official who has kept your notes of the papers reviewed filed and can easily reference them to answer my simple questions.
I look forward to receiving your answers in due course.

Yours sincerely,


Cyril Vibert


This very same letter (above) from the Attorney General is used, virtually word for word, as a template letter to be sent to every complainant whose complaint is to be dismissed in this manner. The Jersey Police, and the Jersey Police Complaints Authority also use the very same template letters to deflect from their responsibility to those they are alleged to serve, the people of Jersey.

Please see the link below for examples of these letters.





"We Will Let You Know What Transpires"




3 comments:

  1. The Attorney Generals letter reads as though the papers he ''received'' were related to your complaint.

    Could be your statements of complaint etc rather than evidence you specified within that complaint.

    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, the complaint is so simple it is primary school stuff, anyone not understanding it in full, quite frankly needs their head testing.

      Delete
    2. And thanks for the well wishes, we are going to get there in the end.

      Delete