Search This Blog

Saturday, 6 April 2013

"THE MALEFICENT SEVEN" - How The Bandits Operate - PART 2 - Doctored Trial Recordings

"Investigating Doctored Trial Recordings"
&
"The Plausible Deniability Game"



Part 1


Part 2
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:
1. Jurisdiction
2. Standing
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"!!!



cyril vibert
c/o 10 Haut de la rue farm,
St. Martin,
Jersey.
23rd July 2012.
Sir M.C.St.J. Birt.
Bailiff of Jersey.
Bailiffs Chambers,
Royal Square,
St. Helier,
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.

Yours sincerely,


cyril vibert

cc to;
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".


Cyril Vibert
c/o 10 Haut de la Rue Farm,
St. Martin,
Jersey.
28th March 2013
Sir M.C.St.J. Birt
Bailiff of Jersey,
Royal Court House,
Royal Square,
St. Helier,
Jersey.

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.

Yours sincerely,


Cyril Vibert


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.





26 comments:

  1. Why is D G C Filipponi replying to your letter on Sir Michael Birts headed paper? Why not a reply from Sir Birt?

    First they verified the transcript against the audio-recording & satisfied themselves that the transcript is a true & accurate record.

    Clever police work. Did they investige who has means and motive to tamper with audio, prior to transcripts and audio being produced?

    Secondly, they have carried out a technical examination of the recording equiptment which has confirmed that the recording has not been tampered with & the integrity of the recording software, equiptment & audio file remain intact. (Which audio file?)The produced transcribed one or the one not available. I doubt this is a software equiptment error.

    There conclusion is that there is no indication whatsoever of anything that calls into question the validity or integrity of the court recording process.

    No indication whatsoever of anything?

    Wow. How about fallible humans corruption etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "(Which audio file?)"


    Now your thinking like us :)

    Quite pathetic isn't it, and quite stupid also, as they know we have been through this before and are learning every time.

    The simple truth of it anon, is that they are lying through their teeth, I was ticking off the questions as Cyril asked them. I would put my life on it that absolutely NO INVESTIGATION whatsoever took place. Bowron is going to have to come up with the evidence of an investigation, and what halfwit electronics expert is going to put his/her name to that?

    Why is Filipponi using King Birt's headed paper? Simple, Birt is not going to incriminate himself by putting his own name to it. Birt learned that one when he put his name to my letters when my trial tapes were doctored back in the nineties when he was just a mere Attorney General.

    As for your point "Did they investigate who has means and motive to tamper with audio" it matters not, the lizard man, Le Heuze is responsible for everything that goes on in his department....end of!

    The longer it goes on, the deeper the hole gets, and Oh when it rains :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I get the feeling you have an ace up your sleeve.

    Your own recording perhaps> :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be silly anon, we were told in no uncertain terms that we were not permitted to record events in the court, and we are honourable men who stand by our declarations, and the rule of law.

      However, we re-cognised that there were others in the courtroom that day who simply did not own the morality and honesty that we four were gifted with, perhaps they caught something that we did not?

      It's coming crashing down anyhoo, so who gives a shyte?

      Delete
  4. Readers, please take note that the three letters at the foot of the posting testifying to the question asked in court, have been doctored by myself. I have removed addresses, names, and signatures for the protection of said witnesses, and for no other reason. We are all prepared to swear sworn affidavit's through a Notary Public that this question was asked in Bridget Shaw's courtroom!!!

    We are also prepared to go to jail for the prescribed ten years if it can be proved that any of us are bearing false witness in this case.

    What does that tell our readers?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ian, not for publication, don't want to let them know what help you are getting.

    I'm an IT professional and in my experience any recording system worth its salt writes to a database as well as the file system. As a matter of course, that database should be backed up at least daily. There should also be file system backups. In banks, backups of these things are taken every 15 minutes or so, the logic being that if you have a major failure, you only lose the last 15 minutes. Anyway, to cut a long story short, you should be asking for access to the backups taken either during the day of the trial or on the night of the trial. There should also have been daily backups thereafter. From comparing different backups, you could work out when the doctoring occurred.

    One other strategy would be to find out who the IT Director is responsible for maintaining the court's recording equipment. Is it the States of Jersey IT Director? Write that guy a letter demanding access to all the backups, as a subject access request under Data Protection law or the code of conduct on FOI. That guy is contractually obliged to ensure that an adequate backup strategy and data retention policy is in place. Push that button.

    Computer hard disks don't lie. Even if you try to wipe 'em, data is recoverable by a specialist.

    Keep plugging away, it's obscene if the audio recordings have been doctored.

    As I said, please don't publish, don't give 'em the chance to destroy backups.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ian, please stop with the constant JEP posts and concentrate solely on the excellent postings like this one. These post is what it's all about but they get lost in the multiple JEP posts. Who gives a flying fuck if the JEP don't give a right of reply.. Posts like these is what it's all about.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, we gotta cater for everyone, unfortunately, most seem to thrive on the tittle tattle that is presented to them. Only by catering for them will we eventually interest them in something with a little more meat on it.

      In the words of "The Stranglers" nice and sleazy does it, nice and sleazy, nice and sleazy does it, does it EVERY TIME

      Delete
  7. The context of Bridgets reply in the transcript after circled question two is wrong.

    Magistrate: Very well we're going to proceed with this trial. The centenier is going to read the charge to you.

    Earlier Centenier: Yes I will deal, I will read that one out Madam.

    The Magistrate follows the above with thank you very much and your known as Cyril Vibert?

    who is she talking to, Cyril or the Centenier who has just claimed to read that charge out. If she was thanking the centenier for reading the charges out why is she then thanking you prior to confirming who you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just love it when the people finally come to fruition! :)

      Delete
  8. Not finally Ian I have been following Cyril and your journey with evidence for a long time now.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Neither did I.

    I think it was the finally as though people are only just getting it.

    Your evidence speaks volumes as does the courts failures and excuses to provide the evidence you require.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, I hate to burst your bubble, if indeed I have so to speak, but the whole problem in this paedophile, stinking, corrupt shit hole of an island is the fact that people, are in fact....Only just getting it!!!

      Delete
  10. ian
    i have asked before and will ask again stop using the word sheeple i am not one of the sheep and there are many more like me we do not bow down to anybody all the talk in the world will not change anything thing it will not take many but it will come to a force of arms only then will change happen it has to come to this for change to happen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin,

      I have a rant now and again, yet you want to go out fighting wars! That then makes us worse than them, violence will cure absolutely nothing mate, nothing.

      The threat of State violence against us is what they use, how does it help our cause for us to become what we despise? We just end up taking over from where they left off, same as they took over from the Nazi's....

      Delete
  11. ian,most of us do not have your courage and i know i wish i was stronger person but im not.many of us are afraid if we say anything against them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh anon, do you think for the slightest moment that there have not been times when I have been scared? That Stuart, Neil, Rico, Cyril and Trevor have not been scared? We are all human, and share the same frailties as everyone else, it is in our natures.

    This is not about who is brave, or who is strong or defiant, the hero and the coward march together side by side within every man, this is simply about taking back control of our own lives and destinies. It is about (to quote a man I admire) "Not having to dig through the shit that they manufacture, to find the diamonds of our freedom". That is what it's about.

    Remember that we are all equal here, no one has the right to command or demand anything from any of us. We are all, all of us, thoroughly obliged to enjoy and live our lives in peace and abundance, not to be their slaves and cash cows. What right do they have to live a life of luxury and plenty, and at our expense, whilst we struggle on a daily basis just to make ends meet?

    Cyril was telling me yesterday that about 30 years ago there was a rent tribunal in Jersey whereby anyone could complain if they were being charged to much, or if their accommodation was sub standard, that the owner would be made to do the necessary repairs. What happened to that? Cyril informs me that they changed the laws so landlords could run riot and charge whatever they wanted. Then who started buying up all the properties to use for lodging houses? Why the very same politicians and lawyers that changed the laws!

    Do not look to people like myself, Stuart, Rico, Cyril, Neil or Trevor for your strength and freedom, but rather simply take a good long hard look in the mirror and find these attributes within yourselves.

    Please, please find something to think about RIGHT HERE

    ReplyDelete
  13. IAN
    with out war hitler would have one.i do not say war or violence is the way but in jersey what else is left we all talk the blogs talk but are we you any better off.ian i don,t have your skill on a keyboard.but i do have a life wich i would happley give up for the right for what comes after me to live without fear, i for one am not a sheeple

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am very pleased to hear that Martin. Let's just leave the violence thing in the past where it belongs, it has no place in our battle. Non compliance is the way forward for everyone, just stop paying them and cut off their lifeline which is money. It is their God, and all they care about, they don't give a damn about you, or any other pleb.

      Would any of you fear them if they were all skint? My guess is no you wouldn't, what is it about this worthless commodity that is nothing but printed paper and that has most of the world on it's knee's? All we need to live and be happy is shelter and food, and it will go back to that eventually.

      Delete
  14. Ian
    In what you do and the way you stand up for all i do not know how you say this but you are great.but i cant see it like you do i hope you rico vfc ss are right. me martin can only see one way im not like you i see black and white,but i do wish you vfc rico ss and all the rest hope

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin, I am not going down that road, the path I have chosen is non-compliance and history has proven that it works.

      Delete
  15. Hi Ian changing the subject a little.

    On reading the Jersey ROAD TRAFFIC (JERSEY)Law 1956

    Their own laws. It states
    89 Power to inflict and levy fines summarily293
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Article, where a person is charged with any offence under this Law or under any Order and accepts the decision of a Connétable or Centenier having jurisdiction in the matter, then that Connétable or Centenier may inflict and levy summarily a fine up to either an amount not exceeding two fifths of level 2 on the standard scale or the maximum fine provided for that offence, whichever is the lower.294

    What jumps out at me is ''accepts the decision of a Connetable or Centenier having jurisdiction'' So the rest is hogwash.

    If you do not accept the Centenier or Connetable having Jurisdiction as your own jurisdiction is common law rather than these ''acts''

    Again here.

    Article 25

    careless driving; except where each person who has suffered personal injury or damage to property as a result of the offence has agreed to accept the decision of a Connétable or Centenier having jurisdiction in the matter and the offence was committed more than 5 years since the date on which the defendant was last convicted for an offence under any of Article 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 30B or 52;

    Someone is going to have to try harder to ammend and disguise these enactments from the common law man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi anon, it doesn't matter what jurisdiction you are in, common law, UCC, Maritime Admiralty, they just completely ignore you anyway, take not a scrap of notice of anything you say, and just carry on happily with their fraud!

      And if you have the God damned nerve to appeal, they doctor your trial recordings :)

      Welcome to Jersey Justice....

      Delete
  16. were the fuck is christmas in all this he is definetly not in la moye

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :) Are you in the slightest bit surprised? I was stunned he ever went there....

      Delete