I'm facing trial for fraud. It involves a receipt I have for a cash
payment. It has been alleged that I tricked someone into signing it.
I'm happy with my legal team, but I wondered if anyone else has a
different perspective, or any insight into my situation.

The police have faked 2 seperate pieces of evidence. 

The first piece of "evidence" is a copy of the receipt in question
"found" on my computer - dated 3 days after it was signed ! ! ! :
1. polices' own IT expert confirmed date & time on my computer were set
correctly 
2. person who signed receipt did'nt sign a blank piece of paper 
3. police have suggested I could have created bottom half & left top
blank -   if so, top must have been hidden & it would'nt make any
difference if top half was printed or not 
4. if I created just the bottom half, & added the top later: 
a. I would use the same document 
b. it would show that it was created on or before the date in question,
& MODIFIED 3 days later
c. it has been suggested that 2 different docs were used - where is the
first one ? 
d. if a 2nd document was produced, on a different computer, why was'nt
this investigated ? 
e. besides, why would 2 different docs be used ? 
f. you would do both halves on the same document to make sure
everything was spaced out/lined up properly 
g. why is the bottom half shown - this would only happen if the bottom
half had been created previously

My solicitor has lined up a forensic IT expert, & we are waiting for
access to my PC. However, the police have yet to respond. When the PC
is finally examined, there are 2 possible scenarios:
1. best case - it can be proven that the PC has been tampered with. In
that case, it is an abuse of process & the case will be binned
2. worst case - it can't be proven that the PC has been tampered with.
However, the very existence of the document is evidence in itself.

The second piece of "evidence" is a Copy & Paste document (hardcopy):
1. Comprises the top of an initial draft of the receipt, & the bottom
of the signed receipt - obviously cut & paste 
2. no point in me making it - once I had my signed document that was me
sorted 
3. supposedly found in the folder of documents for a complaint I was
putting together
4. no way I would deliberately put it in there 
5. it has been suggested I put it in there mistake. If that was the
case, I would'nt take any care handling it - so why is the fingerprint
"evidence" inconclusive ? ! ? !

With this piece of evidence, again, the very existence of the document
is evidence in itself

I understand that - in the 2 instances where the existence of the
document is evidence in itself - this is not conclusive, as it would be
if our expert comes up trumps. However, it is still evidence, & there
are 2 seperate pieces, which lend weight to each other.

Combined with evidence of police breaking the rules throughout, as well
as bias in their investigation, any trial would be unfair. Or is the
legal definition of 'fair' different to the real-world definition.

What about human rights - everyone has a right to a fair trial. If I
was a criminal or a terrorist, I bet I'd be protected. Forget the Human
Rights Act though, the right to a fair trial goes back to Magna Carta.

Any opinions, advice etc ?

Thanks




-- 
mark68

On Jul 22, 7:20 am, mark68  wrote:
> I'm facing trial for fraud. It involves a receipt I have for a cash
> payment. It has been alleged that I tricked someone into signing it.
> I'm happy with my legal team, but I wondered if anyone else has a
> different perspective, or any insight into my situation.
>
> The police have faked 2 seperate pieces of evidence.
>
> The first piece of "evidence" is a copy of the receipt in question
> "found" on my computer - dated 3 days after it was signed ! ! ! :
> 1. polices' own IT expert confirmed date & time on my computer were set
> correctly
> 2. person who signed receipt did'nt sign a blank piece of paper
> 3. police have suggested I could have created bottom half & left top
> blank -   if so, top must have been hidden & it would'nt make any
> difference if top half was printed or not
> 4. if I created just the bottom half, & added the top later:
> a. I would use the same document
> b. it would show that it was created on or before the date in question,
> & MODIFIED 3 days later
> c. it has been suggested that 2 different docs were used - where is the
> first one ?
> d. if a 2nd document was produced, on a different computer, why was'nt
> this investigated ?
> e. besides, why would 2 different docs be used ?
> f. you would do both halves on the same document to make sure
> everything was spaced out/lined up properly
> g. why is the bottom half shown - this would only happen if the bottom
> half had been created previously
>
> My solicitor has lined up a forensic IT expert, & we are waiting for
> access to my PC. However, the police have yet to respond. When the PC
> is finally examined, there are 2 possible scenarios:
> 1. best case - it can be proven that the PC has been tampered with. In
> that case, it is an abuse of process & the case will be binned
> 2. worst case - it can't be proven that the PC has been tampered with.
> However, the very existence of the document is evidence in itself.
>
> The second piece of "evidence" is a Copy & Paste document (hardcopy):
> 1. Comprises the top of an initial draft of the receipt, & the bottom
> of the signed receipt - obviously cut & paste
> 2. no point in me making it - once I had my signed document that was me
> sorted
> 3. supposedly found in the folder of documents for a complaint I was
> putting together
> 4. no way I would deliberately put it in there
> 5. it has been suggested I put it in there mistake. If that was the
> case, I would'nt take any care handling it - so why is the fingerprint
> "evidence" inconclusive ? ! ? !
>
> With this piece of evidence, again, the very existence of the document
> is evidence in itself
>
> I understand that - in the 2 instances where the existence of the
> document is evidence in itself - this is not conclusive, as it would be
> if our expert comes up trumps. However, it is still evidence, & there
> are 2 seperate pieces, which lend weight to each other.
>
> Combined with evidence of police breaking the rules throughout, as well
> as bias in their investigation, any trial would be unfair. Or is the
> legal definition of 'fair' different to the real-world definition.
>
> What about human rights - everyone has a right to a fair trial. If I
> was a criminal or a terrorist, I bet I'd be protected. Forget the Human
> Rights Act though, the right to a fair trial goes back to Magna Carta.
>
> Any opinions, advice etc ?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> mark68

Police in the UK routinely manufacture physical evidence and most UK
solicitors know that they do, but surprisingly not many UK solicitors
behave properly to combat this problem or as they should, the only way
to beat these problems is by not allowing your solicitors to plead you
either *not Guilty* or *Guilty* ...if that happens you will go to
contest and the contest will become your word v plods...no prizes for
guessing who is going to lose.

You must insist that no plea be given to any charge at this stage and
the matter be contested via a *voir dere*  and then a contest on your
evidence v plods evidence will occur to see if plod has manufactured
or fabricated any of there evidence. Sadly if you find that they have,
the beak will just throw the thing out and save you the cost of a
trial, plod will probably get promoted

mark68;544185 Wrote: 
> I'm facing trial for fraud. It involves a receipt I have for a cash
> payment. It has been alleged that I tricked someone into signing it.
> I'm happy with my legal team, but I wondered if anyone else has a
> different perspective, or any insight into my situation.
> 
> The police have faked 2 seperate pieces of evidence. 
> 
> The first piece of "evidence" is a copy of the receipt in question
> "found" on my computer - dated 3 days after it was signed ! ! ! :
> 1. polices' own IT expert confirmed date & time on my computer were set
> correctly 
> 2. person who signed receipt did'nt sign a blank piece of paper 
> 3. police have suggested I could have created bottom half & left top
> blank -   if so, top must have been hidden & it would'nt make any
> difference if top half was printed or not 
> 4. if I created just the bottom half, & added the top later: 
> a. I would use the same document 
> b. it would show that it was created on or before the date in question,
> & MODIFIED 3 days later
> c. it has been suggested that 2 different docs were used - where is the
> first one ? 
> d. if a 2nd document was produced, on a different computer, why was'nt
> this investigated ? 
> e. besides, why would 2 different docs be used ? 
> f. you would do both halves on the same document to make sure
> everything was spaced out/lined up properly 
> g. why is the bottom half shown - this would only happen if the bottom
> half had been created previously
> 
> My solicitor has lined up a forensic IT expert, & we are waiting for
> access to my PC. However, the police have yet to respond. When the PC
> is finally examined, there are 2 possible scenarios:
> 1. best case - it can be proven that the PC has been tampered with. In
> that case, it is an abuse of process & the case will be binned
> 2. worst case - it can't be proven that the PC has been tampered with.
> However, the very existence of the document is evidence in itself.
> 
> The second piece of "evidence" is a Copy & Paste document (hardcopy):
> 1. Comprises the top of an initial draft of the receipt, & the bottom
> of the signed receipt - obviously cut & paste 
> 2. no point in me making it - once I had my signed document that was me
> sorted 
> 3. supposedly found in the folder of documents for a complaint I was
> putting together
> 4. no way I would deliberately put it in there 
> 5. it has been suggested I put it in there mistake. If that was the
> case, I would'nt take any care handling it - so why is the fingerprint
> "evidence" inconclusive ? ! ? !
> 
> With this piece of evidence, again, the very existence of the document
> is evidence in itself
> 
> I understand that - in the 2 instances where the existence of the
> document is evidence in itself - this is not conclusive, as it would be
> if our expert comes up trumps. However, it is still evidence, & there
> are 2 seperate pieces, which lend weight to each other.
> 
> Combined with evidence of police breaking the rules throughout, as well
> as bias in their investigation, any trial would be unfair. Or is the
> legal definition of 'fair' different to the real-world definition.
> 
> What about human rights - everyone has a right to a fair trial. If I
> was a criminal or a terrorist, I bet I'd be protected. Forget the Human
> Rights Act though, the right to a fair trial goes back to Magna Carta.
> 
> Any opinions, advice etc ?
> 
> Thanks


Hmmm, seems you have to rely on your expert witnesses, and the police
on theirs. Are you innocent of all charges? Why would the police wish
to allegedly frame you?




-- 
Grapet1

frediesmith@googlemail.com;544419 Wrote: 
> On Jul 22, 7:20*am, mark68 mark68.2cac...@legalbanter.co.uk
> wrote:[color=blue][i]
> 
> 
> Police in the UK routinely manufacture physical evidence and most UK
> solicitors know that they do, but surprisingly not many UK solicitors
> behave properly to combat this problem or as they should, the only way
> to beat these problems is by not allowing your solicitors to plead you
> either *not Guilty* or *Guilty* ...if that happens you will go to
> contest and the contest will become your word v plods...no prizes for
> guessing who is going to lose.
> 
> You must insist that no plea be given to any charge at this stage and
> the matter be contested via a *voir dere*  and then a contest on your
> evidence v plods evidence will occur to see if plod has manufactured
> or fabricated any of there evidence. Sadly if you find that they have,
> the beak will just throw the thing out and save you the cost of a
> trial, plod will probably get promoted

Can you give me more details on 'voir dere', or point me in the right
direction. I've searched on Google, but I've only come up with passing
references.

I was charged in April, & I pleaded not guilty. I have the pre-trial
hearing & case management hearing coming up soon. Is it too late for a
'voir dere' ?


Cheers




-- 
mark68

In article ,
mark68   wrote:
>Can you give me more details on 'voir dere', or point me in the right
>direction. I've searched on Google, but I've only come up with passing
>references.

I'm not a lawyer, but a quick guess as to a likely mis-spelling suggests
that the previous poster intended to refer to the phrase described
here:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire>

If you ask google for UK pages relating to that (it appears to have a quite
separate meaning relating to jury selection in the US), I think it will
probably give you some ideas.

-patrick.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:30:07 +0100, jpmg@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick
Gosling) wrote:

>In article ,
>mark68   wrote:
>>Can you give me more details on 'voir dere', or point me in the right
>>direction. I've searched on Google, but I've only come up with passing
>>references.
>
>I'm not a lawyer, but a quick guess as to a likely mis-spelling suggests
>that the previous poster intended to refer to the phrase described
>here:
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire>
>
>If you ask google for UK pages relating to that (it appears to have a quite
>separate meaning relating to jury selection in the US), I think it will
>probably give you some ideas.
>
The essence of it is that it is a hearing before the judge alone, in
the absence of the jury, usually to determine the admissibility of
evidence which one side propose to call in the trial proper. Also
called a "trial within a trial". It happens most often in relation to
alleged confessions. Contrary to what was suggested above, it is not
necessary, or usual, that no plea should have been entered. The
defendant will plead not guilty in the normal way. The admissibility
point does not need to be taken until the relevant witness actually
goes into the box.

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

mark68 wrote:
> frediesmith@googlemail.com;544419 Wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 7:20*am, mark68 mark68.2cac...@legalbanter.co.uk
>> wrote:[color=blue][i]
>>
>>
>> Police in the UK routinely manufacture physical evidence and most UK
>> solicitors know that they do, but surprisingly not many UK solicitors
>> behave properly to combat this problem or as they should, the only
>> way to beat these problems is by not allowing your solicitors to
>> plead you either *not Guilty* or *Guilty* ...if that happens you
>> will go to contest and the contest will become your word v
>> plods...no prizes for guessing who is going to lose.
>>
>> You must insist that no plea be given to any charge at this stage and
>> the matter be contested via a *voir dere*  and then a contest on your
>> evidence v plods evidence will occur to see if plod has manufactured
>> or fabricated any of there evidence. Sadly if you find that they
>> have, the beak will just throw the thing out and save you the cost
>> of a trial, plod will probably get promoted
>
> Can you give me more details on 'voir dere', or point me in the right
> direction. I've searched on Google, but I've only come up with passing
> references.
>
> I was charged in April, & I pleaded not guilty. I have the pre-trial
> hearing & case management hearing coming up soon. Is it too late for a
> 'voir dere' ?
>
>
> Cheers

See this link 
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/medtrng/pdf/Glossary_of_Legal_Terminology.pdf 
and it is the last item.

Tanner-'op

So a 'voir dire' hearing would just consider whether the 'evidence' is
admissible or not. Police misconduct would not be addressed & the trial
would go ahead.

Hopefully, our expert will find conclusive proof. That would clearly
show Abuse of Process & the case would/should be binned. I know Abuse
of Process applies even if the accused is obviously as guilty as sin -
which I'm not.

If our expert can't find anything, we will have to go with the less
conclusive evidence. I think that if there is even a hint of police
misconduct - & there is more than just a hint in this case - any trial
would be unfair. Unfortunately, the 'law' & 'fairness' are often at
odds.




-- 
mark68