"The O'bar Incident" PC Nelson - the perjury

Scene Two: The Police Arrive


SO, whilst the kicking of Graham Cousins was subsiding, our wonderful police arrive. I was pointed out to a police officer by a witness, Slim Miri (general slime ball/liar, and thief) that I was one of the assailants.

Indeed, I was one of the assailants. I punched Cousins twice at the outset of the incident OUTSIDE the nightclub, and never once denied it when questioned by the police. In fact, I told them before they had even asked me about my actions outside of the nightclub. I had punched him twice to put the filthy coward down, down so he could not pick up another lethal weapon to maim or kill his victim. This might sound a little far fetched, but kill, was a distinct possibility with a pint glass. Only good fortune by the merest few inches had stopped Glen Phillips having his Carotid artery severed, possibly suffering a stroke, or even bleeding to death. It takes just a matter of a few minutes to bleed to death when your Carotid artery is severed!

Anyhow, there I was, accused of being one of the gang who beat Graham Cousins, right in front of a police officer! What did police officer PC Nelson do? Well, nothing actually, nothing other than to tell me to “fuck off or I would be arrested”. My response was to tell him that “I was going nowhere until I had found my cross and chain” which Cousins had ripped from my neck a few minutes earlier. However, when in court, and under oath, PC Nelson denied my saying anything about my cross and chain?

I would love to quote, at this juncture, from PC Nelson’s statement; however, this is impossible as my lawyer had never provided me with a copy of it? And to this day, I have still not received a copy of it? There is a good reason for my lawyer not furnishing me with a copy, that reason is that another officer had (in court) concurred with my assertions, and had backed me up in Court by saying that he heard me saying I was going nowhere until I had found my cross and chain. A fact that the corrupt, PC Nelson had denied under oath!

Advocate Renouf asked PC Nelson “did he (Evans) mention a cross and chain to you?” PC Nelson replied “No Sir” Advocate Renouf then said “are you sure about that, sergeant, now?” PC Nelson replied “Yes Sir”. Advocate Renouf then asked “might you have forgotten what Evans said to you after the nine months that has passed since December 19^th?” PC Nelson replies “No Sir, No Sir”.

PC Robert Alan De La Cour stated under oath that “Mr Evans was in dispute with another officer who was trying to get him to leave. Mr Evans, however, was concerned about a neck chain that he had lost somewhere near the front step of the O’bar.”

Advocate Renouf then asked, “who was the other officer? Can you remember?”

PC Robert Alan De La Cour stated under oath “PC Nelson, Sir”. Pc De La Cour then goes on to say “he just kept saying that he had lost a neck chain, and PC Nelson was telling him to leave and he said he was refusing to go until he found his neck chain.”

Advocate Renouf also said to PC Nelson “PC De La Cour told us that Evans was in dispute with you, and that Mr Evans was concerned about a neck chain he had lost.”

PC Nelson responds under oath that “I know nothing about a neck chain”. And again “nothing about a neck chain”.

WPC Alexandra Le Chevalier also recalled me going on about my cross and chain. Advocate Renouf asked her “did you hear Ian Evans speaking, even shouting, about the fact that he had lost a chain, a neck chain?” the WPC replied “Yes”.

Also, the head doorman, Sean Brennan, remembers the incident about the chain. He states under oath that “a grey headed policeman, dog-handler, was actually having an argument with Mr Evans”. The prosecutor then asks “can you remember what the argument was about?” Sean Brennan replies “the policeman was asking him to move back from the actual step, and he (Evans) was saying you’re not going to stitch me up for this. He also mentioned at the time that he had lost his chain, which I later recovered from just outside the O’bar”. Sean Brennan also states “I went down because Ian was actually saying he had lost his chain, he had lost his chain”. Advocate Renouf then asked “who was Ian Evans saying this to?” Sean Brennan replied “the grey haired policeman”. Advocate Renouf then said “PC Nelson, yes, I think it would be. That he had lost his chain.”

SO, what conclusions can we draw from the evidence given by PC Nelson?

For one, we know he is a complete and utter liar. Two, he has brazenly committed perjury in the Royal Court. Three, even when confronted with the fact that he might be mistaken about his recollections, he adamantly stated he was not wrong, or mistaken, about the evidence he had given.

Given these facts, his evidence should have been stricken from the proceedings, he should have been charged with perjury, and dismissed from the police force. But hey readers, this is “The Jersey Way”.

"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!!!

"My Thoughts On Tape 2"

My Advocate, Christopher Lakeman, is now in possession of the first tape recording, and matters are beginning to look a little suspect. I will elaborate more as we go through the transcript of this tape, as the actions of my lawyer begin to make me feel uneasy.

Advocate Lakeman told me (immediately after listening to tape one) that there was a very good chance that I would still be found guilty? What did he know that I did not? This tape was gold dust, one could not have wished for better evidence yet my own Advocate is implying that it is virtually useless! What bizarre behaviour for your own Advocate to display, but I suspected there would be a huge cover-up to protect the bent coppers that had lied under oath.

PAGE ONE

1/ I said to Stuart "did he (advocate Lakeman) give you a transcript of the tape?"
Stuart said "no, he never gave me the transcript." I then asked "why not?"

The answer was obvious though, Advocate Lakeman had no intention of making a transcript, and never did make one. I believe that (even at this early stage) the case was already destined to be swept under the carpet. I will wager that the second I left his office, he was onto his buddies at the law officers department.

PAGE TWO

1/ I said, "my brief never told them (the police) anything that was on the tape."
I should have cottoned on at this juncture that something was badly awry, but I didn't.

2/ Stuart then says "and your lawyer says the tape can't be played in court, it's something to do with Jersey Law."
Something to do with Jersey Law? If the tape cannot be played in court, how do we know that the tape even exists? I never cottoned on to this little stunt either! not admitting the tape as evidence.

PAGE FOUR

1/ Stuart says "your lawyer says to me, has there been any threats? and I says no, there's never been threats."
This statement had me worried as I had already heard rumours that people were saying Stuart had been threatened into making the tapes! The only way now, that the police could cover up this little inconvenience.

PAGE FIVE

1/ Stuart then says "well at the end of the day, I would say somebody is trying to stir the shit then Ian."
Damn straight Stuart, and we can guess who!

2/ Stuart says "If there is any threats, I'll be honest, I'll go straight to the police about it Ian. Cos I've, I've going to court cos I've been tricked, and at the end of the day, I am going to court too tell the truth."
I would say that this statement is proof enough that Mr Buchannon was not threatened, and that the conspiracy by the police is genuine.

PAGE SIX

1/ By now, I had twigged what was going on and asked Stuart the following question.
"How many times have the coppers asked you?"
Stuarts reply was "If Ive been threatened"
How did Stuart know what I meant by the last question?

2/ Stuart says that a Sergeant asked him "have there been any threats?"
Stuart then replies "to be quite honest, NO."

PAGE SEVEN

1/ Stuart then repeats (after being asked again) "there's been no threats to me, my family or friends, any shit like that."
Then the Sergeant asks him yet again! "are you sure."
Stuart replies "I'm a hundred percent sure."
The deaf/corrupt Sergeant, then tells Stuart "well, an Inspector will get in touch with you about that?"
I hope you readers understand now, the depths that the Jersey Police will sink to to prosecute me, or to save themselves.

2/ Our corrupt Sergeant then persists "an Inspector would be in touch within the next day or two."
Clearly, the Jersey Police have already got their plan of action worked out. That plan is to get Stuart Buchannon to say that I threatened him into making the tapes and that he complied under extreme duress. They would then be in a position to get themselves out of the crap they were in, and prefer more charges against myself!!! Yes, I would have been charged with many more offences, perverting the course of justice, to name but one.
They were even prepared to make an Inspector complicit in this web of corruption and conspiracy, how else would our corrupt Sergeant know that an Inspector wanted to talk to Stuart?

The one, single, tiny detail that buggered up their entire corrupt little charade, was this!
STUART BUCHANNON IS AN HONOURABLE, DECENT, HONEST TO GOODNESS, HUMAN-BEING. THIS THOUGHT HAD NEVER ENTERED THOSE POLICE MEN'S TINY LITTLE MINDS.

3/ Stuart goes on to say "Andy Smith told me this, one night erm, what/whats been said on tape is what I've been told, and your lawyer says he will prompt me on a few things."
He might well have prompted you Stuart, but he knew you would never get to court!

PAGE EIGHT

1/ I ask Stuart if my lawyer took a statement off him, Stuart replies,
"NO, he says he didn't actually have to see me."
Can any sane person be asked to believe that a lawyer would not want to see a witness who corroborates the assertions of his client, especially against the word of five police officers ?????
Of course Lakeman is up to his eyeballs in this conspiracy, how the hell could he not be?

I think the evidence really does speak for itself, especially in this case, total corruption!!!