the police can, and in one case did, corrupt taped interviews!
Please note, the answers given to the ‘virtual interview’ questions in this exposé/article, are (by and large) in the ‘Public Domain’. See the TRUTH’s editorial page (the link to which can be found on the main contents page) for more.
In many respects, this exposé very much follows on, chronologically, from the more worrying article: ‘How 4 members of the UK media, Met Police, and the main three political parties etc, Corrupt Children!’
It all came about when Michael Howard, the last Conservative Home secretary of the previous century, introduced two legal precedents. First, and as mentioned in the article: ‘Michael Howard, Hero to Villain’, he modified the police caution. Second, and significant to this article, in the wake of the events that saw those convicted of being involved in IRA pub bombings in Guilford and the Maguire seven being released, while several police officers were charged with perverting the course of justice (see this link for more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven), Michael Howard introduced Police taped interviews. As to why he did that. It came to light that Police officers had corrupted, falsified hand written statements by defendants.
To guard against any such police corruption ever happening again, even with taped interviews, two cassette tapes were used; one for the police to transcribe and one for the defendant.
In 1997, a Labour government came to power, possibly facilitated by Tony Blair’s claim to ‘Get tough on crime…tough on the cause of crime’, something that transpired to be a serial lie as explained in the telling article: ‘How Tony Blair’s claim to ‘Get tough on crime…Tough on the cause of crime’ transpired to be a lie!’
He was helped by the shadow home secretary, Jack Straw, who was appointed the Cabinet position of Home Secretary from 1997 to 2001.
During his tenure, he likewise sought to make changes to the law. He started by speaking out about the relaxation of the censorship laws in 1996, and that subsequently lead to a change in the head of the BBFC (see article: ‘The Truth about the lies about porn!’).
He also made it publicly known that he had a mind to do away with trial by jury, something that, thankfully, did not come about, while it’s worth keeping that very point in mind for the end of this article. He did, however, the Home secretary being the only person responsible for it, whether knowingly or not, make it invitingly easy for Police officers to corrupt taped interviews, and, as will be seen, conspire with others, including the prosecution and the court, itself.
Uncle Jack, as British political comedian and seeker of the truth Mark Thomas referred to him in at least one of his many Channel 4 shows, made it so that the second tape, rather than go to the defence, would, instead, be sealed for a Judge to open should the need ever arise. That very much opened the door for a return to police corruption of interviews.
In one particular case, one that the TRUTH brought to light in 2003, there was damning evidence as to why the sealed tape should be opened and compared with the ‘corrupt’ police transcript that was read out in court, and the reason for that is this: it had parts of it, mitigating circumstances helpful to the defendant, deliberately omitted. Not only that, but the court, prior to sentencing, was made aware of both woman Police Officer Anne Linton’s perjured testimony, that of failing to tell ‘the whole truth’, aided by the prosecution council. More on that at the end.
As mentioned in other articles, whereas people may lie elsewhere (to the media and, now, in a court of law of all places), here, they have to tell the TRUTH and the whole TRUTH!
So, let us start with some facts about the case.
PO A Linton, What type of crime was it?
PO A Linton: ‘One that was absent of malice’.
That means no assault or harm of any kind?
PO A Linton: ‘Correct.’
One could, therefore, liken the said crime to that of using a CB radio before the use of CB Radios was made legal?
PO A Linton: ‘Yes.’
Again, keep that point, ‘absent of malice’, no harm done and a trivial crime in mind, reader, for later on in this damning article of justice gone wrong; justice being what the TRUTH stands for.
PO A Linton, when you took your place in the witness box, what was one of the first things that you did?
PO A Linton: ‘As is usual when giving evidence, I took an oath on the Bible.’
That oath, if you would be so kind?
PO A Linton: ‘To tell the truth, the whole truth –’
Let me interrupt you there. On that last part, ‘the whole truth’. Did you, though, tell ‘the whole truth’ and to the judge and jury?
PO A Linton: ‘NO!’
Okay, let me get this clear for our readers, most of who are no doubt shocked by that revelation. You, as a police officer giving evidence and under a sworn oath, failed to tell ‘the whole truth’?
PO A Linton: ‘Yes, I, as a police officer giving evidence under a sworn oath, failed to tell “the whole truth”.’
So, then, you lied, correct?
PO A Linton: ‘Yes, I lied with part of my evidence.’
If you would, kindly iterate the oath in full.
PO A Linton: ‘To tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’
By my reckoning, and from what you have admitted to, lying to a judge and jury, you failed on the last two parts: ‘the whole truth and nothing but the truth’?
PO A Linton: ‘Yes.’
Lying in a court of law when giving evidence is?
PO A Linton: ‘Perjury.’
Something that, as mentioned in this news magazine’s Editorial, Lord Archer and another Conservative member of Parliament were found guilty of and sentenced to a term in prison.
You, on the other hand, avoided that, of course?
PO A Linton: ‘Of course.’
In what way did you lie and subsequently commit perjury?
PO A Linton: ‘I read out in court a corrupted transcription of the taped interview.’
How, exactly, did you do that?
PO A Linton: ‘Answers and their questions were omitted from the transcript.’
Since you were the one who conducted the interview, you were and had to be fully aware, when you read out the transcript and gave evidence, that questions and their answers had been omitted from the transcript, even if you were not instrumental in their omission?
PO A Linton: ‘You got me. I have to say that was a most brilliantly worded question. Yes, I was fully aware that, when I read out the transcript under oath, it had been corrupted by questions and answers being omitted.’
Comparatively, then, the very reason why taped interviews were introduced by Michael Howard, and that was to prevent interviews being corrupted by the police?
PO A Linton: ‘Yes.’
For what conceivable reason were the answers and questions omitted?
PO A Linton: ‘They were beneficial, mitigating answers that would have put the defendant in a better light with the jury.’
So, in effect, what you are saying is, you made the defendant appear guilty to the jury. To put not too fine a point on it, you mislead the jury (mislead being synonymous with corrupt)?
PO A Linton: ‘Yes. I mislead the jury.’
It is worth mentioning at this point, that sort of thing has happened before. Someone publicly admitted that, in order to make a defendant seem guilty and dangerous to the jury, they had an additional officer guard him in the dock. Back to the interview, which has more telling points to reveal.
It has to be said, you, yourself, also mislead the jury in another way?
PO A Linton: ‘I did.’
How? In what way?
PO A Linton: ‘I mentioned something that was totally irrelevant, thereby making it seem relevant and damaging to the defence.’
To make the defendant seem more guilty?
PO A Linton: ‘Yes, to make them seem more guilty to the jury.’
So much for impartiality.
What was it that you mentioned?
PO A Linton: ‘Something about an advert.’
You also had help, didn’t you? The QC prosecuting the case?
PO A Linton: ‘Yes.’
At the end of the trial’s first day, she mentioned ‘what’ to the judge?
PO A Linton: ‘That she would be going over the taped interview.’ (Something to that effect.)
In other words, then, playing the taped interview?
PO A Linton: ‘Yes.’
That would have meant, not only would she have been aware that the taped interview had been corrupted as far as the transcript went, but that you lied, committed perjury, under oath?
PO A Linton: ‘Yes.’
In effect, then, she ‘Put you on the stand knowing full well that you intended to commit perjury’?
PO A Linton: ‘Yes’.
Putting a witness on the stand, knowing full well that they intend to commit perjury, can, if found guilty, result in the defence or prosecution council being disbarred from practising law. On that basis, she, like you, was taking a chance and for what is very much a trivial crime?
PO A Linton: ‘Yes.’
To the court that heard the case. Did you, prior to the sentencing date, receive a fax, one that mentioned some of the omitted parts of the taped interview, sent by the TRUTH?
Court representative: ‘Yes.’
One can only speculate as to what happened to the fax, as it was, to our knowledge, never brought to the attention of the proper authorities, the judge, for one, resulting in the investigation of perjury by PO A Linton along with the prosecution’s involvement, while the complicity of the court now makes that three bodies of the law and supposed British justice acting (conspiring) together.
The TRUTH, in the interest of TRUTH and Justice (see editorial as to what the TRUTH stands for), sent a copy of its findings, etc to the Chief superintendent at Charring Cross police station, where PO A Linton works, and by recorded delivery:
I have to say, since there was no mention of what the TRUTH revealed, in the news, certainly not an investigation of police taped interviews, someone at Charring Cross police station not only ignored said police corruption but was a fourth or more person (depending how many people saw the contents of the letter) involved in what is now a conspiracy, one aimed at perverting the course of TRUTH and justice and by the following: PO A Linton who, it goes without saying, could not have acted alone (= 2 or more people), the QC prosecuting the case, the court where the trial was held and, lastly, Charring Cross police station.
As mentioned in another article, according to Nicolas Cage’s character in the brilliant conspiracy drama ‘Snake Eyes’, it takes five people to make it a conspiracy.
In the episode of Columbo entitled: ‘The bye-bye sky high IQ murder case’, the sleuth makes a point to an accountant, one that Columbo suspects has been given a promotion in order to cover up embezzlement by the murderer: ‘Any accountant who is aware of a felony, he becomes an accessory to that felony unless he reports it to the proper authorities.’ I dare say, that, if he was talking to someone else, a police commissionaire in one episode, he would have said the same thing; it not applying just to accountants, but anyone.
All in all, with such a conspiracy, and a proven one at that, British justice is very much a joke and you’d be 100% right, and that is without the points revealed herein.
Only in the US, compared with the UK, is a defendant truly innocent until proven guilty.
Let us look at the comparison with this still from the film ‘Legal Eagles’:
Daryl Hannah’s character is on trial for murder. Unlike a British court, she is sat with her legal council played by both Robert Redford (lead council) and Debra Winger (co-council). This makes it easy for the defendant, in this case an innocent one, to bring conflicting evidence, perjury as in the case of PO A Linton, to her defence council’s attention, resulting in them ‘objecting’ to the witness’ and prosecution’s evidence.
A British court, on the other hand, does not afford this level of innocence and justice, something that PO A Linton and the trial’s QC took full advantage of and for a trivial crime; the sentence being suspended for a year. That meant, if, within 12 months, there was no repeat of the crime any sentence, time in prison, would be expunged.
That raises one huge, significant question, and that question is very simple. If the police are prepared, as proven, to corrupt police taped interviews for a trivial crime, one devoid of malice, to what lengths are they willing to go for something serious?
It is worth noting this rather worrying point about PO A Linton; She, along with PO Steel, aide and abet the sale and supply of sexually explicit material to children. (See the TRUTH’s article: How 4 UK newspapers, aided and abetted by the three main political parties and the metropolitan police etc’ corrupted UK children.)
If all of that corruption were not enough, the film also highlights another aspect of unimpartiality of British law.
In the Robert Redford film above, he is set to actually prosecute Darryl Hannah’s character on behalf of the District Attorney’s office, only to have a falling out with the DA himself, and subsequently defend her.
By comparison John Thaw played Kavanagh in the UK TV series ‘Kavanagh QC’, a barrister who, in addition to prosecuting cases on behalf of the British government’s laws (the Queen’s Council aspect), was seen defending a prosecution whereby he faced a QC.
Where oh where is the impartiality?
How to rectify the two problems raised in this damning exposé?
First and foremost, a third tape, one that is given to the defence, has to be the order of justice.
Secondly, British courts need to conform to that of US courts. That way, if anything likely to mislead (corrupt) the jury is presented as evidence (physical or oral) by the prosecution, it can immediately be brought to the defence council’s attention and ‘struck off’.
After first hand proof that the transcripts of police taped interviews can be corrupted, then, in the interest of “TRUTH & JUSTICE”, being that which the TRUTH! stands for, the TRUTH offers the following precautionary advice:
1) If, you have no access to a micro tape recorder, then, at the start of the interview (so that it is on tape…!), say: “I reserve comment until a member of CIB (being the UK version of the USA’s IA = Internal affairs) is present.” if the police officers conducting the interview show signs of refusing, simply say: “As the then Home Secretary Michael Howard once indicated: Refusal to co-operate indicates you have something to hide, and, or be corrupt about...!"
NB. Ironically, that statement actually refers to Taped Police interviews…!
When the CIB officer arrives, indicate that: “Since it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the transcripts of police taped interviews can be corrupted, I hereby request in your presence that the tape remain in this room and that it be transcribed in both your & my presence.”
2) If you do have access to a micro tape recorder, take it with you and once the taped interview has started, take out the recorder and start recording. If the police officers conducting the interview object, simply say: “As the then Home Secretary Michael Howard once indicated: Refusal to co-operate indicates you have something to hide, and, or be corrupt about...! And I therefore request that a member of CIB is present.”
When the CIB officer arrives, indicate that: “Since it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the transcripts of police taped interviews can be corrupted, I hereby request in your presence that either 1) I be allowed to also tape the interview using my micro tape recorder, or 2) the tape remains in this room and that it be transcribed in both your & my presence.” Anything less, is a breach of your Human Rights.
One valid point about CIB:
Episode 8 of the BBC’s “Between the lines”, and CIB officers are seen coaching the corrupt police officers that they are investigating to LIE for the taped interview, while also giving them instructions during the interview break.
All of the evidence herein, brings to mind a slogan from the last century:
‘With friends like that, who needs enemies!’
Footnote: Having published this 26 years update of the original printed TRUTH from and since 1994 to the internet, the TRUTH has sought to contact, by e-mail, one or more of those named in this article along with ITV and the BBC.
Contact us: the.irrefutable.truth2020@gmail.com