Saturday, 6 April 2013
"THE MALEFICENT SEVEN" - How The Bandits Operate - PART 2 - Doctored Trial Recordings
"Investigating Doctored Trial Recordings"
"The Plausible Deniability Game"
As some of our readers are aware, Cyril recently had what was alleged to have been 'a fair trial' in sunny Jersey.
During this administrative process (alleged trial) Cyril proceeded to annihilated the prosecutions case with gusto. This was possible because of the amount of time and planning that went into building the defence case, using their own laws against them. We will of course be visiting this case in great detail at a later date.
What this particular posting is about is how a very well considered and pertinent question with regard to Cyril's defence case, managed to completely erase itself from the Magistrates Greffes version of the recording of Cyril's trial.
On Wednesday afternoon, myself and Cyril sloped on down to the Magistrates Greffe to listen to Cyril's trial tapes of the 27th April 2012, as we had alleged that a number of extracts did not appear in the transcripts that Cyril was sent for his appeal.
What we listened to can only be explained in one of two ways, either the recording equipment in the court was faulty or someone had tampered with the recording. At trial, Cyril had asked Bridget Shaw a short series of questions that we had compiled and printed out a few days before trial. There will undoubtedly be the date of creation on Cyril's computer bios.
Cyril asked Shaw the following
"Am I presumed innocent of these alleged crimes?"
Shaw naturally answered this innocuous question with a "Yes" (this not appearing in the transcripts or on the recording)
Cyril then asked the pertinent question "Am I presumed innocent of all the elements of these alleged crimes?" The whole of this question, and Shaws entire reply to it, is missing from the recording and the transcripts!
There are four witnesses who are prepared to swear an affidavit upon pain of perjury that this question was asked in Court.
This question was so so important because all charges brought before a court require at least three essential elements.
These are the following:
3. A valid cause of action
So, if we are presumed innocent of the alleged crime then we must also be presumed innocent of all the elements of the alleged crime. This means the prosecution must prove all of the elements to the crime, and in a magistrates court, for statutory offences this is not possible for the prosecution to prove.
Anyone still wondering why this section is missing :)
Obviously this is an extremely serious matter, and one which will be addressed at Cyril's appeal. We will be demanding and independent investigation into this alleged criminality, and without any interference from Jersey.
As many of you will recall, this is not the first time that the Jersey authorities have been accused of doctoring trial tapes!
Below is the itinerary we wrote and printed out for Cyril, and of course, after that the accompanying transcripts provided by the Magistrates Greffe which are underlined.
Of course, there are other sections missing that we haven't disclosed yet but are holding back on until the time is right. On the 13th June 2012, Cyril wrote to the magistrates court greffe explaining that the transcripts were not certified, and that the transcripts did not accurately represent what was said in court. Cyril further asked for a copy of the trial recordings, he was flatly refused this request and given no explanation as to why he could not have a copy, he has still not received a copy to this day. The letter is below.
On the 23rd July 2012 Cyril wrote to the Bailiff, M. Birt with a complaint against the man who chaired the first hearing of his appeal, Deputy Bailiff, William (barking Bill) Bailhache. This complaint centred on the fact that Bailhache had dismissed Cyril's protestations that the police officers had committed perjury, and that Cyril's trial recordings had been tampered with, stating that these factors would have no bearing on the outcome of his appeal? "YOU WHAT"!!!
c/o 10 Haut de la rue farm,
23rd July 2012.
Sir M.C.St.J. Birt.
Bailiff of Jersey.
Dear Sir Michael,
Please take note that I hereby lodge a formal complaint against Deputy Bailiff, William J Bailhache for abuse of discretion, in relation to my appeal against conviction from the Magistrates Court on the 27th April 2012, at the Royal Court on the 25th June 2012.
This complaint refers to two matters arising from my conviction at the Magistrates Court on 27th April 2012.
1) My claim of perjury by PC 252 O’Neill and PC 283 O’Brien, in that they both lied whilst under oath in the Magistrates Court and subsequently their evidence was used by Assistant Magistrate Shaw to form part of her judgment, there is an on- going police investigation into this matter (attachment 1) and should the officers be shown to have lied under oath, all of their evidence in this case would be called into question.
The correct form was filed by me, asking for PC O’Neill to attend Court as a witness in the appeal (attachment 2), PC O’Neill’s police notebook contains the evidence proving perjury. PC O’Neill did not attend the appeal, the respondent claiming he had a firearms training course that day, this reason was accepted by the Deputy Bailiff.
2) There are 4 witnesses who are willing to testify that the transcripts of the Magistrates hearing have missing parts, a witness and me can testify that the recording of that same hearing also have parts missing. On the 25th June 2012 I asked the Deputy Bailiff for an independent forensic examination of this recording to determine what had gone wrong with this recording, this request was refused by the Deputy Bailiff.
Appendix 3, is a copy of the Deputy Bailiffs decision on these matters.
I do not accept the Deputy Bailiffs use of discretion in these matters as they have direct implications
On my ability to conduct a fair and meaningful appeal .
How the Deputy Bailiff can find that ‘alleged’ perjury by Police Officers and problems with Court recordings and transcripts have no bearing on my appeal, is not explained by the deputy Bailiff.
There are, of course, wider implications to these matters, which I am sure you will no doubt comprehend.
General Sir John McColl, Lieutenant Governor of Jersey.
Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke MP. QC. Justice Secretary.
Rt. Hon. Teresa May MP. Home Secretary.
Cyril copied this letter to England which was dealt with by the Crown Dependencies Team who acted extremely swiftly by ignoring his complaints and referring the complaints right back to those in Jersey who Cyril was complaining against? The letter (unsigned) is below.
After a few more exchanges of letters, and Cyril correcting the Bailiff on what exactly it was that needed to be investigated, the Bailiff's office wrote back to announce an investigation into the matter. Much to Cyril's dismay, this investigation was to be undertaken by the States of Jersey police, and not an independent police force which Cyril had requested.
After some time, Cyril finally received the results of the 'alleged' investigation into the doctored recordings by the States of Jersey police. The Bailiff's departments Chief Officer, Mr DGC Filipponi, wrote to Cyril on the 28th of February 2013 to confirm that the 'alleged' police investigation had not turned up any evidence of tampering or malpractice with regard to the trial recordings, or that the equipment was faulty. See letter below.
Of course, and in typical Jersey fashion, no one has provided one single scrap of evidence whatsoever to show that an investigation into these trial recordings even took place, let alone that any forensic examinations were undertaken. No names of the investigators, no electronics experts report, no police report....NOTHING.
Not even our own copy of the trial recordings for us to conduct our own investigation, and at our own expense. We are simply required to take their word for it that this matter has been thoroughly investigated with impartiality and integrity!!!
As readers can see from the link near the top of the page, we have been here before with the doctored trial recording scenario, and still we are not letting it go. Cyril, incensed by Filipponi's letter, wrote back to the Bailiff requesting copies of all the evidence collated, and yet again, a copy of the trial recordings. The letter is below, and is accompanied by the witness statements of those who heard the question that was asked in court. "Am I presumed innocent of all the elements of these alleged crimes".
c/o 10 Haut de la Rue Farm,
28th March 2013
Sir M.C.St.J. Birt
Bailiff of Jersey,
Royal Court House,
FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
I acknowledge receipt of your Chief Officers Letter on your behalf of 28th February 2013 unfortunately this response is wholly inadequate.
Please find enclosed statements from three witnesses who were present at my Magistrate’s Court hearing of 27th April 2012. You will see from these statements and I can personally confirm that at the above hearing I asked Assistant Magistrate Bridget Shaw the question “Am I presumed innocent of all the elements of these alleged crimes.” This question and Assistant Magistrate Shaw’s response is missing from the audio recording of that hearing. All three witnesses and myself are prepared to swear affidavits confirming these statements if necessary.
Mr D Le Heuze of the Magistrate’s Court Greffe refused my request for a copy of that recording, yet it has come to my attention that Mr Le Heuze has supplied others with audio copies of their Magistrate’s Court hearings, this begs the question of why Mr Le Heuze arbitrarily refused to supply me with a copy of the audio recording of my hearing of 27th April 2012.
Your Chief Officers’ letter states that a Police Officer with the assistance of an electronics engineer carried out a technical examination of the recording equipment and the audio files (of my hearing?) and concluded them to be sound. Given that the witnesses had copies of my scripted questions which they could tick off as each question was asked I find the conclusion regarding the audio files of my hearing of 27th April 2012 to be more than a little in doubt. Consequently I am asking you to arrange for a copy be made available to me of all of the reports made by the electronics engineer particularly exactly what was examined and the tests that were carried out on them.
Sir as you are the head of the Judiciary in Jersey I am also asking you to instruct the Magistrate’s Greffe dept. to supply me with a copy of the audio recording of my hearing at the Magistrate’s Court of 27th April 2012. This is a matter of great public concern so I would expect your cooperation in these matters; obviously if no one has anything to hide there will not be a problem in furnishing me with what I have requested.
The three signed witness statements are below.
Naturally, myself and Cyril will be seeing this outrage through to it's final conclusion. When all avenues of inquiry in Jersey have been exhausted, this matter shall find itself on the desks of the Justice Secretary and Prime Minister in England.