Since finishing the "Buchannon Affair" postings, I have been pulled in the street about this blog topic by a number of members of the public, and friends and associates of Stuart Buchannon.
Most have come out with phrases like "you could really screw his employment up" and "the police will harass him now". Well, for one, I am sure that Stuart does not live in Jersey anymore, and if he does? So?
Sorry, but I just don't get it!
What Mr Stuart Buchannon did in this case was totally and utterly commendable.
These comments only serve to endorse the (climate of fear) argument that many of us in Jersey are fighting to eradicate. The fear of being honest and telling the truth, is that so bad? Just because the truth happens to be against members and employee's of the Establishment, does not make it wrong or an error of judgement.
Stuart Buchannon went against the grain, and he went against a good friend of his (Pc Andy Smith) who he knew had committed crimes against two innocents! Where is the dishonour in that?
Stuart Buchannon (through his selfless integrity) saved Paul McAvoy from his first criminal conviction for a crime he had not committed. The ramifications of Stuart's actions are imponderable as Paul may have wished to emigrate in the future, or seek employment with some company that required a clean criminal record? Did these five scumbag Jersey Police Officer's think about that when they tried to stitch Paul McAvoy up for a crime he had not committed? NO!!!
Stuart Buchannon, through his honesty and sheer human decency, also saved myself from going to prison for crimes that I had not committed. Again, did Jersey's finest think about that when they tried to stitch me up? NO!!!
All they thought about was protecting themselves and their colleagues from conviction for crimes they had committed.
So, if Stuart Buchannon is harassed by the Jersey Police, I and a number of my allies will be on it like flies on shit!
Furthermore, I would like to point out that any potential employer of Stuart Buchannon would hire him in a minute after reading this blog!!! WHY? Because any potential employer would recognise what an upstanding, honest, forthright person Stuart Buchannon is!!! What company boss would not want a workforce full of people of the calibre of Stuart Buchannon?.... Only the Jersey Establishment and Police, that I can think of.
In short, Stuart Buchannon has done nothing in this case but show us what a real man he is. To those of you who think he did the wrong thing, your judgement is truly clouded indeed.
I shall be indebted to him for all my life, and with the greatest of respect.
THANK YOU STUART BUCHANNON
Monday, May 31, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
"The Buchannon Affair" The 'filthy rag' Reports!
So the filthy rag (jersey evening post) sticks its oar in, and gets it wrong again! Can't even get the judges name right!
Says that, "no prosecution evidence was offered" ha ha, aaahhaahh haahaha ???
Doesn't mention the charge of assaulting a female police officer!
Doesn't make any mention of the tape recording!
Nothing about the Police perjury!
It is as though they have been complicit in hushing this case up!
Is it any wonder that the Jersey public have no idea what Stuart Syvret has been banging on about for the last 20 years!!!
"The Buchannon Affair Summary" Advocate Lakeman and the Judge
So there we have it, Police corruption to the point of committing perjury!
I will now go through matters with my Advocate and the judge, which I believe were designed to protect the five police officers from facing any charges over their crimes.
So, we are in court and four policemen have lied under oath. Pc Andy Smith, after testifying that he had never had the conversation with Stuart Buchannon, is then spoken to by the judge. The judge then says "if you never had the conversation, how is it that Mr Evans has a tape recording of it?" or words very similar.
The Centenier presenting the case, then jumps up at this point and utters that immortal line "The Police offer no evidence?" How can the police offer no evidence when they have just finished standing in the witness box and given their evidence? It was at this point that I was expecting Stuart Buchannon to appear and give his evidence, but there was no sign of Stuart, why not?
Now, here's the trick!!!
How could the judge possibly have known that I had a tape recording of Stuart Buchannon telling me what officer Smith had said? The Centenier didn't know, the police didn't know, only myself, Stuart and Advocate Lakeman knew! Stuart was not present at court, and I did not tell the judge of the existence of the tape, so it can only have been Advocate Lakeman! Further more, Lakeman must have colluded with the judge before the trial began. What kind of lawyer would do such a thing? A corrupt one.
So now we have the prosecutor wanting to throw the case out. He is wanting to do this without hearing the tape recording, or even reading a transcript of the tape recording? WHY? The judge then adjourns the case for some months? Again, WHY?
Should not the proper procedure have been to call Mr Buchannon as a witness, for him to give his evidence and to admit the tape recording as official evidence? Then to allow the policemen a chance to refute the evidence and question Mr Buchannon!
The reason for this failure (I believe) to not legally admit the evidence, was to protect the police from prosecution for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I think it is beyond doubt that this has been the case, if anyone can enlighten me as to any legal reason why this was not done, I am all ears.
We are now back in court, some months later. The judge then throws the case out on the grounds that he is "concerned about the length of time the case has gone on for?" He, the judge, is the one who made it go on as long as it did by adjourning it in the first place? And why, exactly, was it adjourned anyway? And for so long?
SIMPLE, that was the only way the Establishment could get themselves out of the mess they were in, and without Mr Buchannon being called as a witness against the police.
What should have happened in any lawful jurisdiction, is this. The judge should have immediately ordered a full and independent inquiry/investigation into the conduct of these police officers. The findings should then have determined whether or not myself and Paul should have been acquitted, and whether or not, the police officers should have been charged with any offences?
But truthfully, such is the lawlessness in Jersey, that this outcome was never going to be on the cards. The only real (half) apology we ever got was when we went to claim our expenses, a Mr Austin Vautier told us that "the judge was very sympathetic to our case." Obviously not sympathetic enough to do the right and lawful thing though? Which would have been to have these police officers prosecuted.
Following on,
1/ We have to ask why Advocate Lakeman would not call Stuart Buchannon as a witness?
2/ We have to ask why there was no transcript made of the tape recording?
3/ The mere fact that Advocate Lakeman states that he did not have to see Stuart Buchannon, is indicative of a cover-up. No statement taken from Mr Buchannon, why ever not? This has to be unprecedented in legal circles?
4/ We have to ask why the judge did not insist Mr Buchannon testified?
5/ Why did the judge adjourn the case for months?
6/ Why did the judge not sanction any investigation into the police?
7/ The fact that Stuart Buchannon had never even attended court shows that the Jersey Authorities had already decided the outcome of this trial, well in advance of it beginning!
The Attorney General (on my complaints)
1a/ The A.G, Mr M. Birt QC states of my complaints that....
"you duly made a complaint against the police alleging verbal abuse, a number of assaults and wrongful arrest."
1b/ I also made complaint of four counts of perjury and five counts of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice!!! Why does the A.G not make any mention of these facts when whitewashing my complaints, for the second time???
2a/ He then goes on to say "The matter was investigated by Inspector Upton, who prepared a report for my consideration. I concluded that there were no grounds for instituting criminal proceedings against any of the officers concerned."
2b/ So, we can conclude from the Attorney General's findings....
That Stuart Buchannon was lying?
That officer A. Smith never had the conversation with Mr Buchannon?
That four police officers never perjured themselves?
That five police officers never conspired to pervert the course of justice?
That five police officers never lied in their statements?
That I was not assaulted?
That myself or Paul were not unlawfully imprisoned?
That we were not maliciously prosecuted?
That the Centenier had, in fact, let two criminals off the hook?
That the judge was utterly incompetent in letting us off?
That the judge was wholly wrong to tell Mr Austin Vautier that he had sympathy for our case?
That we have in fact, illegally claimed expenses, and indeed, been granted those expenses?
THIS READERS, I AM AFRAID, IS THE SUM TOTAL OF JUSTICE IN JERSEY....NONE!!!
I will now go through matters with my Advocate and the judge, which I believe were designed to protect the five police officers from facing any charges over their crimes.
So, we are in court and four policemen have lied under oath. Pc Andy Smith, after testifying that he had never had the conversation with Stuart Buchannon, is then spoken to by the judge. The judge then says "if you never had the conversation, how is it that Mr Evans has a tape recording of it?" or words very similar.
The Centenier presenting the case, then jumps up at this point and utters that immortal line "The Police offer no evidence?" How can the police offer no evidence when they have just finished standing in the witness box and given their evidence? It was at this point that I was expecting Stuart Buchannon to appear and give his evidence, but there was no sign of Stuart, why not?
Now, here's the trick!!!
How could the judge possibly have known that I had a tape recording of Stuart Buchannon telling me what officer Smith had said? The Centenier didn't know, the police didn't know, only myself, Stuart and Advocate Lakeman knew! Stuart was not present at court, and I did not tell the judge of the existence of the tape, so it can only have been Advocate Lakeman! Further more, Lakeman must have colluded with the judge before the trial began. What kind of lawyer would do such a thing? A corrupt one.
So now we have the prosecutor wanting to throw the case out. He is wanting to do this without hearing the tape recording, or even reading a transcript of the tape recording? WHY? The judge then adjourns the case for some months? Again, WHY?
Should not the proper procedure have been to call Mr Buchannon as a witness, for him to give his evidence and to admit the tape recording as official evidence? Then to allow the policemen a chance to refute the evidence and question Mr Buchannon!
The reason for this failure (I believe) to not legally admit the evidence, was to protect the police from prosecution for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I think it is beyond doubt that this has been the case, if anyone can enlighten me as to any legal reason why this was not done, I am all ears.
We are now back in court, some months later. The judge then throws the case out on the grounds that he is "concerned about the length of time the case has gone on for?" He, the judge, is the one who made it go on as long as it did by adjourning it in the first place? And why, exactly, was it adjourned anyway? And for so long?
SIMPLE, that was the only way the Establishment could get themselves out of the mess they were in, and without Mr Buchannon being called as a witness against the police.
What should have happened in any lawful jurisdiction, is this. The judge should have immediately ordered a full and independent inquiry/investigation into the conduct of these police officers. The findings should then have determined whether or not myself and Paul should have been acquitted, and whether or not, the police officers should have been charged with any offences?
But truthfully, such is the lawlessness in Jersey, that this outcome was never going to be on the cards. The only real (half) apology we ever got was when we went to claim our expenses, a Mr Austin Vautier told us that "the judge was very sympathetic to our case." Obviously not sympathetic enough to do the right and lawful thing though? Which would have been to have these police officers prosecuted.
Following on,
1/ We have to ask why Advocate Lakeman would not call Stuart Buchannon as a witness?
2/ We have to ask why there was no transcript made of the tape recording?
3/ The mere fact that Advocate Lakeman states that he did not have to see Stuart Buchannon, is indicative of a cover-up. No statement taken from Mr Buchannon, why ever not? This has to be unprecedented in legal circles?
4/ We have to ask why the judge did not insist Mr Buchannon testified?
5/ Why did the judge adjourn the case for months?
6/ Why did the judge not sanction any investigation into the police?
7/ The fact that Stuart Buchannon had never even attended court shows that the Jersey Authorities had already decided the outcome of this trial, well in advance of it beginning!
The Attorney General (on my complaints)
1a/ The A.G, Mr M. Birt QC states of my complaints that....
"you duly made a complaint against the police alleging verbal abuse, a number of assaults and wrongful arrest."
1b/ I also made complaint of four counts of perjury and five counts of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice!!! Why does the A.G not make any mention of these facts when whitewashing my complaints, for the second time???
2a/ He then goes on to say "The matter was investigated by Inspector Upton, who prepared a report for my consideration. I concluded that there were no grounds for instituting criminal proceedings against any of the officers concerned."
2b/ So, we can conclude from the Attorney General's findings....
That Stuart Buchannon was lying?
That officer A. Smith never had the conversation with Mr Buchannon?
That four police officers never perjured themselves?
That five police officers never conspired to pervert the course of justice?
That five police officers never lied in their statements?
That I was not assaulted?
That myself or Paul were not unlawfully imprisoned?
That we were not maliciously prosecuted?
That the Centenier had, in fact, let two criminals off the hook?
That the judge was utterly incompetent in letting us off?
That the judge was wholly wrong to tell Mr Austin Vautier that he had sympathy for our case?
That we have in fact, illegally claimed expenses, and indeed, been granted those expenses?
THIS READERS, I AM AFRAID, IS THE SUM TOTAL OF JUSTICE IN JERSEY....NONE!!!
"My Thoughts On Tape 3"
This tape transcript highlights another identical case and reinforces the facts that are now obviously clear.
Page One
1/ Stuart says "I've not said you've threatened me, I've already been asked by the police, if you've threatened me, I says, there's been no threats handed out."
Page Three
1/ S. Comer says "It happened with me with the coppers. They stand up first and deny ever having the conversation, then the tape gets produced and then Martin Stokes has, well he had to put in a sworn statement in then, saying that they did have the conversation."
Page Five
1/ Stuart says "At the end of the day, I can't deny it Ian, if its on tape."
2/ I then said "I just want the truth Stuart, nothing else. You don't need to stand there lying for me and saying things he never said. I just want the truth, what you told me on two occasions."
Page One
1/ Stuart says "I've not said you've threatened me, I've already been asked by the police, if you've threatened me, I says, there's been no threats handed out."
Page Three
1/ S. Comer says "It happened with me with the coppers. They stand up first and deny ever having the conversation, then the tape gets produced and then Martin Stokes has, well he had to put in a sworn statement in then, saying that they did have the conversation."
Page Five
1/ Stuart says "At the end of the day, I can't deny it Ian, if its on tape."
2/ I then said "I just want the truth Stuart, nothing else. You don't need to stand there lying for me and saying things he never said. I just want the truth, what you told me on two occasions."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)