Father Imprisoned 20 Years on Fake Child Sex Abuse Charges

Written by: Print This Article Print This Article   
Use of Our Content (Reposting and Quoting)
September 21st, 2009 Leave a comment Go to comments

Clyde Ray Spencer spent 20 years in prison for crimes he didn’t commit. In 1984, Spencer was a police officer being investigated on false claims of child sexual abuse and was getting a divorce. His wife Shirley Hanson and her lover apparently decided they wanted him out of their lives to proceed with their relationship. They “finished him off” by having their children falsely accuse him of child sexual abuse. Since Shirley Hanson’s lover Michael Davidson was another sheriff department employee, the attack on Clyde Ray Spencer was made easier.

Sergeant Michael Davidson was the supervisor of Detective Sharon Krause, the primary investigator on the Spencer case. This should have raised questions about conflict of interest immediately, but apparently either didn’t or those questions were covered up. Therefore it was easy for him to push to introduce false evidence, twist the facts, and manipulate the system to obtain a false conviction to put an innocent man in prison to further his personal goals.

Americans mistakenly believe they can count on law enforcement personnel to tell the truth. The unfortunately reality is that far too many law enforcement personnel from street cops to prosecutors are manipulative, unethical, and even criminal. They are too often liars who are out to “win cases” even if it means pinning crimes, even fictional crimes that never happened, on innocent people. They are especially prone to doing this when they feel they have a personal reason to do so. Too often the primary differences between dirty cops like Davidson and criminals are that the dirty cops have badges, can wrongfully hurt people while getting paid to do it by taxpayers, and when caught are seldom if ever prosecuted for their crimes.


Sharon Krause: Biased, Manipulative, and Abusive

As it turns out, Sharon Krause didn’t need extra encouragement to go on a vindictive witch-hunt against a falsely accused parent. She’s yet another example of a biased unethical law enforcement official who doesn’t blink at the idea of persecuting the innocent. There are many allegations against her regarding wrongful investigative procedures, lying, tampering with witnesses, and pursuing wrongful prosecutions against her in multiple child sex abuse cases resulting in wrongful convictions that have landed innocent parents in prison for a decade or more. This includes not only the Clyde Ray Spencer case, but also the case of Lynn Malcom who was put in prison for 10 years before being released after a realization that she probably didn’t commit the crime of which she was convicted.

Conflict of Interest: Hidden Until Conviction Obtained

Michael Davidson made many trips to jail to attempt to talk Spencer into pleading guilty, even though Spencer did not want to talk with him and had counsel and the police should not have been talking with Spencer like this. Davidson argued that a public trial would be difficult on the children and that Spencer should confess and plead guilty. Meanwhile, Spencer’s mental health was falling apart under the strain of the false allegations, loss of his job, imprisonment, and breakup of his marriage in part due to the secret affair between Davidson and Shirley Hanson, Spencer’s wife.

Davidson wouldn’t take no for an answer. He continued to force himself on Spencer until Clark County jail personnel finally ordered him to not return. But the damage had been done. Spencer had entered a plea of not guilty, but as he came to believe that he could not defend himself even though he believed he was innocent, he instructed his court-appointed attorney James Rulli to enter an Alford plea which means the defendent asserts innocence but does not believe he or she can mount a successful defense.

The conflict of interest due to the affair between Spencer’s wife and Michael Davidson didn’t come out until after the conviction was obtained and Spencer was tossed in prison. He spent 20 years in prison before Washington Governor Gary Locke commuted his sentence as it was increasingly clear that he was framed by his ex-wife, her lover, and young children being subjected to parental alienation by their mother.

Spencer Children Speak Out Regarding Father’s Innocence

In July 2009, Spencer’s children Matthew Spencer and Kathryn Tetz, now adults in their 30s, testified in court that their father never molested them. Although they believe he had flaws that led to the demise of the marriage, child abuse and sexual molestation were never among them. They pointed to his undercover police work putting a lot of strain on marriages and relationships, something that he had tried to ameliorate by leaving his federal law enforcement jobs and switching to non-undercover work with the corrupt police department of Vancouver, Washington. Ironically, this is the same police department for which Sharon Krause and Michael Davidson worked unethically and possibly illegally to put Spencer in prison on false accusations with false evidence.


News Video on Spencer Children Recanting False Child Sex Abuse Claims

Misconduct Not Limited to Police

What was done to Spencer is a poster case for police abuse, conflict of interest, and even prosecutorial misconduct. In Clark County, Washington, corruption and depravity spans across law enforcement agencies. The misconduct by government officials wasn’t limited to just corrupt and biased police. The prosecutor was also responsible for heinous misconduct by hiding exculpatory evidence including medical exams that showed no evidence of the alleged violent rapes of the children described by Sharon Krause.

It is well-understood matter of criminal law that prosecutors are required to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. But judging from this case, in Clark County it is acceptable for the government to violate the laws and trample upon citizens’ Constitutional Rights.

This should be no surprise to Americans who are paying attention to the numerous examples every year of misconduct, evidence tampering, perjury, and Constitutional and civil rights violations by prosecutors and law enforcement agencies. These kinds of misconduct are unfortunately common across the nation. They are seldom punished or prosecuted, perhaps because the people who committed the crimes professionally and/or personally aligned with the ones responsible for prosecuting the government-employed criminals behind such atrocities.

Do you honestly think a criminal would indict and prosecute himself or herself or a close associate for breaking the law? Of course not. Government-employed criminals are no different. Without independent oversight to root out, investigate, and vigorously punish the criminal misconduct of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, the criminality by these people will continue. The abuse and persecution against innocent targets and their families will continue in the name of “tough on crime” attitudes and winning cases at all costs, including abandoning truth and justice when expedient.

Corrupt Law Enforcement: Hazardous to Families

The Spencer case is yet another egregious abuse of justice due to malfeasance of government officials. The public is not safe from corrupt law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and other government officials because these people are empowered by corruption and inaction to perjure, tamper with and manufacture evidence, suborn perjury of witnesses, tamper with judges, and hide exculpatory evidence to which the defense has a Constitutional right. Government officials who act in these fashions should be prosecuted for criminal misconduct, deprivation of civil rights, and other crimes. But this seldom happens. Until this changes, the American public should have no confidence in law enforcement, the courts, and the government.

The criminals in government won’t correct these problems. Instead, they will do all they can to cover them up and enable themselves to continue to violate the laws and trample upon people’s rights because it is to their advantage to do so as it helps them bully wrongly accused people into plea bargains and rack up more “wins” in prosecutions.

Dennis Hunter of the Clark County Prosecutor’s Office believes this reasoning if you listen to his expressed intent to appeal the Spencer case. Despite the strong evidence of Spencer’s innocence, conflicts of interests and bias in the police department, and prosecutorial misconduct, Hunter has threatened to take the Spencer case to the Washington Supreme Court if he doesn’t get what he wants.

Speak Out Against Clark County Corruption and Incompetence

If the case disgusts you as much as it should, perhaps you’d like to share your thoughts with Dennis Hunter and his co-conspirator prosecutor Kim Farr. You can send them emails at [email protected] and [email protected]. You can look up their other buddies-in-crime at the Clark County Prosecutor Office website.

Clark County law enforcement and courts apparently have a poor reputation with the citizens over more than just the Spencer case. If this type of atrocity continues, I hope the citizens of Clark County will be voting against Art Curtis, the elected official in charge of this depraved prosecutor’s office. This is the same man who stated that the Clark County Prosecutor’s Office had no such records in an apparently attempt to deny the existence of medical exam reports that were inconsistent with the prosecutor’s rape and sex abuse charges against Spencer. Art Curtis appears to have a personal vested interest in perverting justice in the Spencer case.



Yet it is not just Curtis’s sense of justice that is questionable. Even his priorities and fiscal responsibility are doubtful. Not only does Curtis apparently think it is justified for the government to heap criminal abuses upon an apparently innocent man as they have done to Spencer, but he also thinks it is worthwhile for his office to be spending taxpayer money for repeatedly prosecuting another man for taking a nearly worthless 16 year old water heater from an abandoned mobile home that was declared by the government as uninhabitable due to mold contamination. The accused party, Kevin Vinsonhaler, did this allegedly with permission from the trailer park maintenance man who was found dead the next day from a drug overdose who therefore cannot testify.

The first jury deadlocked 8-4 in favor of acquittal. The jury foreperson was upset the case was even being pursued as it seemed so wasteful and questionable. Yet Art Curtis decided to proceed with a second trial. The second jury acquitted with no deadlock, despite Judge Diane Woolard’s silencing of the defense that Tim Grace, the dead maintenance man, allegedly gave permission to the accused to take the water heater in the first place.

(from In Our Opinion: Cheers & Jeers)

Jeers: To the office of county Prosecutor Art Curtis. Curtis and his staff rightfully take a hard stance against law-breakers, but persisting in a case involving a water heater removed — allegedly with permission — from a trashed mobile home near Wintler Park is overkill. Kevin S. Vinsonhaler was acquitted following a second felony burglary trial this week for taking the appliance, valued at less than $150, from the uninhabitable former home. Seen in a saner light, Vinsonhaler’s actions could be called “recycling.” The case occupied too much of the court’s time and — at $2,000 per day — taxpayers’ money.

Apparently the malicious and wasteful prosecutors in Clark County don’t have enough substantial cases to prosecute to keep them busy. So they spend their time persecuting innocents and wasting taxpayer dollars on cases involving questionable evidence and trivial damages that cost more to prosecute than the expense of any harm done even if their questionable accusations are true.

One wonders if Art Curtis will irresponsibly seek a means to try the case yet again for a third time. Perhaps he’ll try to appeal based upon Judge Woolard’s inappropriate silencing of the mention of dead maintenance man Tim Grace. Or maybe he’s too busy planning to persecute Clyde Ray Spencer some more instead. Either way, it is time for the voters in Clark County to kick Art Curtis out of office and replace him with a more rational and fair prosecutor.

Related Articles

Custom Search

Teach Your Children: Government is Dangerous to Their Lives

Defending Against False Child Sexual Abuse Allegations (Part 1)

How to Win Custody by Framing Your Ex for Child Sexual Abuse

San Diego County Grand Jury Cites Further CPS Misconduct

Man Falsely Convicted of Child Sexual Abuse Awarded $2 Million from New York State

Holding Family Law Judges Accountable

Corrupt Pennsylvania Courts Jail Kids for Cash

Santa Clara County False Child Sex Abuse Scandal

San Diego County Grand Jury Letter Regarding CPS Abuses

The Case of Marilynn (Lynn) Malcom: Falsely Accused, Wrongfully Convicted

More on the Clyde Spencer Case

Kids recant abuse claims after dad jailed 20 years

Reversal of Fortune: Release from prison doesn’t mean freedom, ex-cop finds

After 20 Years, Man Put Away on Divorce-Related False Molestation Charges Is Released

Children: Father didn’t abuse us: Ex-Vancouver police officer spent nearly 20 years in prison

[WA] Jailed nearly 20 years – Ex-Officer Spenser’s now-grown children say the abuse never happened

Clyde Ray Spencer Fights To Have Molestation Case Overturned

Spencer Case Appeal – Court of Appeals, State of Washington, Case 37229-1

More on Clark County Prosecutor Idiocy

Water heater theft case comes to a boil:
Seemingly minor crime results in jury deadlock, lawyer fine

Man found not guilty of stealing old water heater in 2008



)^_
  1. Pam
    September 22nd, 2009 at 08:34 | #1

    I already know how corrupt this county is. This isn’t the first atrocity. Take a look at how much money was gained by the prosecutors and judges in the Jack Stein case. He was wrongfully imprisoned almost 20 years ago and even though his case was overturned by the WA State Supreme Court, it came back to clark county and tried by the same corrupt people. His attorney ended up on the wrong side of justice before the case was over. He was found guilty with no evidence and no witnesses. The people who testified against him in the first case even recanted thier statements and told Jack’s attorneys that the prosecutor threatened him if he didn’t testify against Jack. In his case, way too much money is at stake for the state and way too many people in power would end up in jail. No way could he ever get a fair trial. It’s such a nightmare.

  2. September 22nd, 2009 at 09:20 | #2

    For those of us who have experienced the brokenness of a system that has so much at stake and such poor oversight and accountability, this is just one more example of devastation at the hands of the state.

    The only deterrence is to make the STATE accountable by owing compensation for damages and rooting out those who knowingly abused their positions. Only when the state owes money for the wrongdoing of its employees will justice reforms be considered. This is what we must push for. The state will fire people who cost it millions of dollars, and the People should insist upon it.

    We are a collaborative group our of Nebraska: The Family Advocacy Movement – that offers tools for families and individuals in every state to tell their stories, support other families and join for reforms – even across state borders. Please visit our website and register. We have an important event coming up (October 3rd):

    Safe Haven Revisited:
    Mental Health, Child Protection & Civil Rights
    A Call for Reform

    If you are able to make it to Nebraska for this, you would be welcome! Just visit our conference page to learn more: familyadvocacymovement.com/conference.

  3. September 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 | #3

    This is outrageous. Thank God the children are testifying now but where were they 10 years ago when they knew he was in prison for a lie but didn’t come forward? I hope he sues the county and the police department.

    • Jeremy
      September 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 | #4

      It looks like the kids were manipulated by their mothers to stay out of contact with Clyde Ray Spencer.

      If you look at the allegations and course of the investigation, the first allegations sound very much like they were Shirley Hanson messing around with the mind of her step-daughter Kathryn. The investigation initially went in a direction that looked like Spencer’s first wife, Deanne Spencer, was being investigated for child sexual abuse.

      Later, after Spencer was charged with child sexual abuse, then Shirley Hanson had her son stay over with Spencer at a motel where he was living. This resulted in accusations of child sexual abuse against Spencer for supposedly molesting his step-son, Matt Hanson. The whole thing smells like a set-up.

      An objective prosecutor, unlike the scum in Clark County, could tell the case was a mess and didn’t make sense. Rebecca Roe of the King County Prosecutor’s Office reviewed the case and thought there were substantial problems with the statements from the children and that the case should not be prosecuted. For instance, Kathryn Spencer’s statements named her mother, father, brother, and other people as being involved in sexually molesting her but she couldn’t remember if it was on one occasion or many.

      Clark County prosecuted it anyway. They ruined Clyde Ray Spencer’s life over lies and deceit.

  4. wendi
    October 11th, 2009 at 18:52 | #5

    I can whole heartedly agree with the corruption. My husband of 25 years, who had absolutely no criminal record, has been falsely accused of theft and other related felonies. Despite the fact that he furnished the investigator with evidence to support his claim that the funds were loan proceeds from an investor, the paperwork was disregarded as having been fabricated to present an alibi. The problem with this line of thinking is that in order for him to have done this he would have to have known they were “on to him” and if so would certainly would not have stayed in town nor would he have returned to the bank to withdraw funds from his account. I have personally caught the lead investigator in at least 2 bold face lies and he has stolen funds from our home.

  5. Guenther Focke
    May 14th, 2012 at 20:44 | #6

    Hope something like this has or is not happening to anyone else>

    Because I have stated facts that are the result of my investigation, and I feel so strongly against perversion of the course of justice, I will put my name to this publication, in the future.

    As stated below, I cannot identity the case or the cases, but I will do so at a later date.

    I am a Private-Investigator with more than 45 years experience and am properly schooled.

    In some areas I may repeat myself but this is so the reader may easily see the clearer picture.

    A friend contacted me and informed me that he studies law.

    But what type of law, like the law system that tailors trials and withholds amounts of information from a jury?

    One should think that a jury should be allowed to know all of every fact and not just part of it.

    Why is it, that when expert evidence is called for, it is to make a jury believe what the so called ‘expert’ is saying is ‘fact’ and all other witnesses are as trustworthy?

    The facts are that SOME experts are not the ones that are trustworthy!

    Can I prove this? Yes I can, and I will! (When the cases have ended in their entirety)

    Because experts also provide work for the prosecution services, and this may be the reason why experts in some cases disregard the fact that they had been instructed to provide forensic computer reports for the defence. May be they do not want to lose the work they do on occasions for the prosecution services or the police.
    What does that expert actually do?

    As one case revealed, an expert has been instructed to analyse a backup DVD created at a specific time and he confirmed that they could not find any of the images the police expert claimed to have found, anywhere in the data on the backup DVD.

    Bearing in mind that the only way to change data is to have physical access to the computer to which the backup DVD relates to, as this is, or was, still in the possession of the police, the accused is, and was, not able to change any data, or delete any at all.

    I summarise, why in the evidence report was it originally written to show that live or deleted images had been found in the recycling bin?

    Was it because he was unable to say it was from somewhere else because he stated that a new installation had been performed by the defendant, which also was untrue, because it was not a new installation; so he decided to say it was in the recycling bin banking on the possibility that no one would notice, and if presented to a jury it would have lead to a conviction.

    For me the question arises, was this his own and personal idea? I think I dare say; I don’t think so.

    Experts blatantly draft their reports in favour of a prosecution, appearing to be in collaboration with the prosecution experts!

    Witness should not communicate with each other, but the courts advise experts to communicate to see on what they can agree, that must be stopped for the sake of justice.

    Here is where a conflict of interest becomes apparent.

    Private experts are also working on occasions for the prosecution services, and when employed as defence experts, they do not do what they are suppose to; which is to find defence points and report those to the defence team. No! They write the reports so that it is almost impossible to be called as a defence witness.
    ‘Experts’ are actually collaborating in perverting the course of justice!

    I am not able to specify the identity of the case, or cases, as one of them is still ongoing, but what I can do is quote findings from some of my factual investigation results.

    Is this a perverted justice system, or is it because the people creating the law are not educated enough to realise by creating such open law, it can lead to perversion of the course of justice.

    Do not think that this is fictitious, for it is not!

    Let’s start with:

    A person gets arrested; the person’s computers are confiscated and subsequently analysed.

    It is subsequently claimed that the person has been on the computer on a specific date, on the internet, making indecent images.

    This word (making) is the biggest perversion of justice what could ever have been created in law.

    There is the risk that a 1×1 image domain address can access your computer of an illicit domain and the domain address is immediately logged on your computer.

    I have tested this by sending an email to myself and attached an invisible 1×1 image.

    With a clear domain address, when I logged into that domain it also logged on to my own domain without me noticing it.

    On the history list it showed me having accessed my domain, but I had not done so knowingly, which I know I had not.

    What is this telling us?

    By just analysing the internet history and putting this in front of a jury can lead to an innocent person being convicted.

    But unknown to the people accusing the person of this offence, the person could not have been on the computer on that date and time as the person was not even near the computer at the time accused of.

    Later a back up DVD was analysed relating to the computer and showed evidently that the computer had not even been used for a number of months, including at the time the person was accused of.

    It was in the original report claimed that those images had been found in the recycling bin, again analysing the back up DVD showed there was nothing.

    We are still talking about the same computer (laptop).

    The data of the laptop logs revealed a domain had been accessed while in possession of the previous owner and a file called “pedo” was created minutes thereafter.

    I was unable to find any evidence that the previous owner was investigated; instead the previous owner was invited to the court to give evidence for the prosecution.

    Further down you will read the reason why the prosecution is so hell bent on achieving a conviction?

    Now when it became known that a backup DVD existed, the prosecution expert issued a new statement that he made a typographical error (of a whole sentence) and the images had been somewhere deleted items.

    In his original official report, he stated that the images had been found in the recycle bin.

    The person was committed to crown court for trial.

    As the private investigator I had sight of the indictment file:

    I was able to note that evidence relating to another case, was read in the indictment hearing, which accused the defendant of making recordings of himself, indicating sexual activities and mailing those to a female teenager.

    I contacted the prosecution services to explain how according to the evidence list a number of papers became a laptop computer, it was claimed that they had been in touch with the police and can confirm, that a fundamental mistake had occurred and that it did not belong to the case file of the defendant.

    This alone was already one mistake too many including others too!

    Was this a false accusation, against the defendant?

    As I was a bit green on some wordings used, I contacted a computer forensic expert with the request of defining items in unallocated space or cluster or deleted items, his reply in writing was that unallocated space or cluster or deleted items can not be apportioned to any user!

    I supplied a copy of the same to the police complained department (officer) in the presence of the defence solicitor.

    Because of the official complaint, and this is what I believe, the prosecution service is still trying to get the defendant convicted by way of inferences, not based on factual evidence.

    Why?

    As there is an official complaint against the police (plus), the only way to stop possible action against police and or people in public office is to convict the defendant and then say he was guilty!

    What strikes me even more is that the prosecution barrister is trying to get a conviction without any factual evidence.

    He should have stopped when they had to withdraw the evidence they claimed to have in respect of another laptop, which the defendant also had purchased on the internet and files found from a time while still in the possession of the seller (first owner).

    Only when forced to provide the data logs from that computer and the fact that the date of his possession was known to them, they than withdrew that evidence (but they had already known the date of possession, they ignored and tried to persecute).

    They had been informed about the date of the purchase and this was also in email history

    The defence expert as well was in the knowledge of this evidence or had access to it.

    Yet he also allotted the evidence against the defendant.

    Does this not show clear collusion with the procession against the defendant?

    Then despite this, why did he allow himself in taking part in perverting the course of justice.

    The defence expert must be guilty of negligent conduct, if not of perverting the course of justice?

    By stating: On the basis of probability all the images were made by the defendant!

    It was clearly not the fact, as one can see by withdrawal of that so called evidence.

    At this point I would like to advise the expert to come up clean, contact a legal advisor and turn himself in. Maybe then they can get away with a lighter sentence, offered to other defendants!

    Had you been honest, the case would have already ended!

    Judges are also to blame for these perversions, as they insist the evidence must be supported by an expert.

    Why are all other people liars, or not capable of giving factual evidence, why only a so called expert?

    What else did the prosecution barrister try to use?

    The defendant had in the surprise of his (falls) arrest forgotten the exact date when he purchased the laptops.

    This mistake he tried to correct by factual evidence, but the prosecution barrister wanted to use his mistake to infer that the computers had been in his possession when the images had been made.
    So a defendant is not allowed a mistake when giving a statement, but the police are allowed to put evidence from another case in to get a committal and then call it a mistake?

    I think this was in order to make the magistrates believe, we have the right paedophile here and he must be sent to a higher court?

    As the untrue statement by the defence expert shows and the defence expert could not be called by the defence, he must not think that they can get away with it.

    They will be brought before a public court of law and we will make sure they will be charged with perverting the cause of justice and be banned from carrying on in their profession.

    The fact is that there was no evidence whatsoever in order to even gain a committal order from the magistrate court without this additional evidence relating to another case and then saying it was a fundamental mistake.

    Why are the police allowed to make such fundamental mistakes, people that we all should be able to rely on

    Could one imply here that the questions: Was this a mistake which can destroy a person’s life, and should this mistake be allowed to happen?

    I don’t think so!

    The same defence expert was employed to analyse and support my finding of the facts on backup DVD, it showed the same result as I had found.

    Subsequently the same expert was instructed to analyse the prosecution evidence and here is where it becomes apparent as stated above, a conflict of interest!

    He left out the fact that the evidence could not be allocated to the defendant, why did he not include this in the report.

    Is it that if the expert did not want to become a witness against the prosecution expert in order not to lose the possible future work he or she maybe getting from the prosecution services or police (this is the question, plausible and not a statement of fact)? It is not only one expert this happens to! The law and the guidelines of calling ‘Experts’ are totally wrong.

    I have also noticed that the guideline governing the rules of an expert to give their opinion in respect of the report and are encouraged to judge if the defendant could be guilty of the accusation.

    Despite the fact that the expert had already identified the fact of the making of the images are predating the purchase of the computer, he still stated that in their view the defendant was the person that made the images (not exactly in those words).

    He had already informed the solicitor by email that he was unable to find the images the prosecution expert was on about anywhere. Why did he not report this in his official report?
    This included the hard drive images.

    How bad the legal system is becomes even more apparent when one takes more factors in consideration.

    Some barristers and I must emphasise SOME ONLY (not all) are working in an area of conflict of interest.

    Should you ever be accused of any offence and you are sure you are innocent, look for a defence team that does not do any prosecution work whatsoever.

    Once a solicitor or barrister tells you that the evidence the police or prosecution have is so overwhelming that you would be convicted. Sack them immediately as they are only interested in a quick resolve.

    If you are innocent, the defence team should make use of a good private investigator.

    It is commonly known that judges say experts should be instructed, and it also known that judges indicate that instructing an expert could come out worse for the defendant and if the defendant pleads guilty he could come out with a lesser punishment.
    In other words, blackmailing an innocent person into giving a guilty plea? Is this not perverting the course of justice in itself?

    How can this blatant disregard for justice be corrected, how can the risk of imprisoning many innocent people be reduced.

    It is not totally preventable, but it is reducible by creating a system by which a jury is allowed to be presented with full evidence, not only what the courts believe, the jury would understand.

    Is one saying the jurors are not intelligent enough?

    The defendant’s representative must have the right to employ good private investigators that are untouchable and do not react to any intimidation should this happen.

    Being totally neutral, only report to the defence team and more importance must be given to them in court!

    The judge must decide if they may appear as an expert investigator.

    The use of the so called computer experts should be very much scrutinised, and if they leave out any important information or misreport their findings, or are not doing their job for which they have been employed, they should be held responsible, by receiving the same or equal sentence for perverting the course of justice.

    The danger here is that most of the time no private investigator is used and no one investigates the evidence.

    _______________________________________________________________________
    Do to fact that the procession expert had clear acted negligent when compiling his report.
    Issuing a revised statement should be taken as an admission to acknowledging as to how false the evidence is.
    Surely the prosecution (barrister) can not be so under educated.

  6. Guenther Focke
    May 14th, 2012 at 20:49 | #7

    Corection

    Do to fact that the prosecution expert had clearly acted negligent when compiling his report.
    Issuing a revised statement should be taken as an admission to acknowledging as to how false the evidence is.
    Surely the prosecution (barrister) can not be so under educated not to notice this simple fact

  7. June 27th, 2012 at 21:23 | #8

    **********(REVISED TEXT OF EARLIER POST)*************

    PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
    IN THE NAME OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II?

    I am a properly schooled private investigator with more than 45 years experience.

    In some areas I may repeat myself, so the reader may easily see a clearer picture.

    Because I have stated facts that are the result of my investigation and because I feel very strongly against perversion of the course of justice, I have put my name to this publication.

    As stated below, I can not identity the case or the cases, but I will do so at a later date.

    For reasons of security, I have safeguarded copies of all information referenced with fellow investigators abroad.

    What type of legal system do we have in Britain? A legal system that purports to be acting in the name of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, while it tailors trials and tips the scales against defendants long before they ever set foot in a court room?

    Why is it that when expert evidence is called, it is to make a jury believe that what the so-called expert is saying is ‘fact’ and that all other witnesses are not trustworthy?

    The facts are that SOME experts are the ones who are not trustworthy!

    Can I prove this? Yes I can, and I will! (once the cases have ended in their entirety)

    Because experts also provide work for the prosecution services, this may be the reason why experts in some cases disregard the fact that they have been instructed to provide forensic reports for the defence. Maybe they do not want to lose the work they do for the prosecution services or the police?

    What does that expert actually do?

    As one case revealed, a computer expert had been instructed to analyse a backup DVD created at a specific time and he confirmed that this backup DVD was void of any of the allegedly incriminating content the police computer expert claimed to have recovered from the exhibit the backup had been made of, bearing in mind that the only way to change data is to have physical access to the computer to which the backup DVD relates. As it was, and still is, in the possession of the police, the accused is, and was, not able to change and/or delete any data thereupon at all.

    So why was it originally written in the crown expert evidence report that allegedly incriminating content had been recovered from the exhibit?

    Was it because he was unable to say it was from somewhere else because he stated that a new installation had been performed by the defendant, which was also untrue, because it was not a new installation; so he decided to say it was in the recycling bin, banking on the possibility that no one would notice, and if presented to a jury it would lead to a conviction?

    For me the question arises, was this his own and personal idea? I dare say not!

    Experts routinely and blatantly draft their reports in support of prosecution allegations and in some cases appear to be overtly collaborating with prosecution experts!

    Witnesses should not communicate with each other, but the courts advise experts to communicate to see on what they can agree, that must be stopped for the sake of justice.

    Here is where a conflict of interest becomes apparent.

    Defence experts are also working on occasion for the prosecution services and when employed as defence experts, they do not do what they are supposed to; which is to find defence points and report those to the defence team. No! They write the reports so that it is impossible to be called as a defence witness.

    Why do so many ‘Court Experts’ appear to be collaborating in perverting the course of justice?

    I am not able to specify the identity of the case, or cases, as one or more of them may still be ongoing, but what I can do is quote findings from some of my factual investigation results.

    Is this a perverted justice system, or is it because the people creating the laws are not educated enough to realise that creating such open laws can lead to perversions of the course of justice?

    Do not think that this is fictitious, for it is not!

    For example:

    A person gets arrested; the person’s computers are seized and analyzed.

    It is subsequently claimed that the person has been using one or more of his/her computer(s) on a specific date to access alleged illegal content on the internet, which in the case of pictures is termed “making images”.

    This word “making” is the biggest perversion of justice that could ever have been created in law, as the law dates back to the 1970′s and was crafted to reflect technology standards at the time.

    There is the risk that an image sized as 1×1 pixels in HTML code (i.e. hidden from view) is accessed on a computer, leading to the domain address being logged on this computer as accessed content.

    I have tested this by sending an email to myself and attaching an image sized as 1×1 pixels in HTML code after clearing out all temporary internet files. As soon as I opened this e-mail, the image file and source domain used for this test image showed up in the temporary internet files folder and related access history log files.

    What is this telling us?

    Simply analyzing internet history and putting this as evidence before a jury can lead to an innocent person being convicted.

    But unknown to the people accusing the person of this offence, the person could not have been using said computer on that date and time as the person was not anywhere near this computer at the time he/she is accused of using it. Later, a backup DVD was analyzed relating to this computer and showed that this computer had not even been used for a number of months, including the time the person was accused of using it.

    It was in the original crown computer expert report where it was claimed that allegedly incriminating content had been found in the recycling bin; again, analysis of the backup DVD showed there was nothing.

    We are still talking about the same computer.

    The data of the computer logs revealed a domain had been accessed while in possession of the previous owner and a file with a name indicating incriminating content was created minutes thereafter. I was unable to find any evidence that the previous owner was investigated; instead the previous owner was invited to the court to give evidence for the prosecution.

    Further down you will read the reason why the prosecution is so hell-bent on achieving a conviction.

    When it became known that this backup DVD existed, the prosecution expert issued a new statement that he made a typographical error (of a whole sentence???) and the allegedly incriminating content had been somewhere else among deleted items instead, whereas in his original official reports, he stated under oath that the images had been found in the recycle bin.

    The defendant was committed to crown court for trial, a decision partly based on this flawed crown expert testimony.

    As the private investigator I had sight of the indictment file. I was able to note that evidence relating to another case was read at the indictment hearing, which accused the defendant of making video recordings of himself engaged in sexual activities and distributing this material to a minor.

    I contacted the prosecution services to explain how according to the evidence list a number of papers became a laptop computer. It was subsequently claimed that they had been in touch with the police and confirmed that a fundamental mistake had occurred and that this “evidence” did not relate to the case file of the defendant.

    This alone was already one mistake too many! Was this a malicious accusation against the defendant or really just a mistake?

    As I was a bit green on some wordings used, I contacted a computer forensic expert with the request of defining items in unallocated space, clusters and deleted items. In his written reply it was confirmed that allegedly incriminating content recovered from unallocated space/clusters or deleted items can not be attributed to any user.

    I supplied a copy of the same to the police complaints department (officer) in the presence of the defence solicitor.

    Because of the official complaint, and this is what I believe, the prosecution service is still trying to get the defendant convicted by way of inferences, not based on factual evidence.

    Why?

    As there is an official complaint against the police (plus any collaborating judicial system professionals, also in public office), the only way to stop possible action against police and/or collaborating judicial system professionals is to convict the defendant.

    What strikes me even more is that the prosecution barrister is trying to get a conviction without any factual evidence.

    He should have stopped when they had to withdraw the evidence they claimed to have in respect of another laptop, which the defendant had purchased on the internet and files found from a time while this exhibit was still in the possession of the previous owner were falsely and blatantly attributed to the defendant, only to be formally withdrawn under pressure from the defence team, which forced the prosecution to produce data logs exonerating the defendant. Particularly worrying is the fact that the prosecution was aware of the date the defendant first took possession of this particular exhibit (they had been informed about the date of the purchase and this was also in email history), but nevertheless proceeded with prosecution based on this false evidence, presumably in the hope that no one would notice.

    The defence expert as well was in knowledge of this situation and had access to all information related thereto. Yet he also falsely attributed this so-called evidence to the defendant. Then, despite this knowledge, he took part in perverting the course of justice. Does this not show clear collusion with the prosecution against a defendant? This defence expert is surely guilty of negligent conduct as one can see clearly by withdrawal of that so-called evidence.

    At this point I would like to advise this expert to come clean, contact a legal advisor and turn himself in. Had he been honest, the case would have already ended with the defendant being completely exonerated!

    Judges are also to blame for these perversions, as they insist that evidence must be supported by an expert. Why are all other people liars, or not capable of giving factual evidence, why only a so called expert?

    What else did the prosecution barrister try to use?

    The defendant had correctly stated the year during which the exhibit had been purchased, so the prosecution barrister tried to cleverly mislead the Court into believing that the earlier of two purchase dates given related to two distinctly separate exhibits, thus inferring that the exhibit was in possession of the defendant at a time when it was clearly not

    So, a defendant’s truthful statements are twisted to create an illusion of culpability, while the police are allowed to put evidence from another case in to get a charging decision and committal and then call it a mistake? The fact is that there was no evidence whatsoever in order to even gain a charging decision from the CPS, nor a committal order from the magistrate court, without this additional evidence relating to another case.

    Due to his false statement the defence expert could not be called by the defence, however, he must not think that he can get away with what he has done. He will be brought before a public court of law and we will make sure he will be charged with perverting the course of justice and banned from carrying on in his profession.

    Why are the police allowed to get away with such a long list of fundamental mistakes? They are people that we all should be able to rely on! Their “mistakes” destroy people’s lives and should not be allowed to stand.

    I certainly don’t think so!

    The same defence expert was employed to analyze and support my findings of the facts as reflected by the backup DVD. Subsequently the same expert was instructed to analyze the prosecution evidence and here is where everything becomes apparent as stated above: a conflict of interest at best, blatant perversion of the course of justice at worst!

    Is it that the expert did not want to become a witness against the prosecution expert in order not to lose possible future work he or she may be getting from the prosecution services or police (this is a question, plausible, yet not a statement of fact)? The laws and guidelines governing court expert conduct are well overdue for in-depth scrutiny.

    I have also noticed that the guidelines governing court experts call for them to give their opinion in respect of their reports They are thus encouraged to act as judge and jury in determining whether or not a defendant is guilty. This cannot be right.

    Despite the fact that the expert had already identified the date of creation of the alleged incriminating content as being before the date the defendant purchased the exhibit, he nevertheless stated that in his view the defendant was responsible for the creation of the alleged incriminating content – even though he had already informed the defence solicitor by email that he was unable to find the alleged incriminating content anywhere and that “in any case, what he had found constituted tampering with evidence by the police”; why did he not include this in his official report instead of falsely incriminating the defendant?

    How bad the legal system is becomes even more apparent when one takes more factors in consideration. Some barristers – and I must emphasize SOME ONLY (not all) – are working in an area of conflict of interest. Should you ever be accused of any offence and you are innocent, look for a defence team that does not do any prosecution work whatsoever. Once a solicitor or barrister tells you that the evidence the police or prosecution have is so overwhelming that you would be convicted, sack them immediately as they are only interested in a quick resolve.

    It is commonly known that judges say experts should be instructed, and it is also known that judges indicate that instructing an expert could come out worse for the defendant and if the defendant pleads guilty he could come out with a lesser punishment. In other words, blackmailing an innocent person into a guilty plea – is this not perverting the course of justice in itself?

    How can this blatant disregard for justice be corrected, how can the risk of imprisoning many innocent people be reduced?

    It is not totally preventable, but it can be reduced by creating a system which allows a jury to be presented with full evidence, not only what the courts believe to be relevant. Is one saying that jurors are not intelligent enough to determine this for themselves?

    The defendant’s representative must also have the right to access public funding for employing good private investigators that are untouchable and do not react to any intimidation should this occur. They should report to the defence team only and be given more importance in court! One vital function private investigators should also be used for is to investigate the “evidence” offered by the “experts” involved.

    The work of crown and defence experts should be very much scrutinized. If they leave out any important information, misreport their findings or are not doing the job for which they have been employed, they should be held responsible and receive the applicable sentence for their parts in perverting the course of justice.

  1. March 11th, 2010 at 03:12 | #1
  2. April 22nd, 2010 at 03:21 | #2
  3. February 12th, 2012 at 07:11 | #3
  4. July 10th, 2012 at 22:46 | #4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *


Comments are moderated to remove spam and harassment. They may sometimes be edited to correct spelling, grammar, and linking errors. Most comments are approved within a day, but at times review and approval may take a couple of days.

89,147 Spam Comments Blocked so far by Spam Free Wordpress

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>