TheHippo
I have followed your thread so far and one question that I kept coming back to when reading it is what word/s do you think is/are missing in the taped interview?
Another question is that you do not say whether you had representation with you at the material time of the interview?
At around the two minute mark, the interview went more like this-
InterviewerYou now have the right to free legal representation (I know you said previously you would like a solicitor, but you are here to confess so you waive that right.
Me Can I have a solicitor?
InterviewerIf you want to wait 2 days in the guardroom cell for an army lawyer, but you are just here to confess so you waive that right.
Me yes
Interviewer so you waive that right,) obviously Tom I've already asked you that…
MeYes, Yeah I waive that right.
The portion in brackets was removed leaving what's on the tape. Later in the interview I nearly blurted out what had previously been said, but I lost my bottle. I wish I had, but it probably would have just been edited out. So consequently the interview had no solicitor, and since summary hearings do not allow any legal representation, the tapes were never heard untill I requested them years later.
InterviewerYou now have the right to free legal representation (I know you said previously you would like a solicitor, but you are here to confess so you waive that right.
Me Can I have a solicitor?
InterviewerIf you want to wait 2 days in the guardroom cell for an army lawyer, but you are just here to confess so you waive that right.
Me yes
Interviewer so you waive that right,) obviously Tom I've already asked you that…
MeYes, Yeah I waive that right.
The portion in brackets was removed leaving what's on the tape. Later in the interview I nearly blurted out what had previously been said, but I lost my bottle. I wish I had, but it probably would have just been edited out. So consequently the interview had no solicitor, and since summary hearings do not allow any legal representation, the tapes were never heard untill I requested them years later.
As an observation of 'could be/might be'; if you are adamant that the tape has been doctored. I am also conscious of the fact that the other side is not here to comment or uphold their view and maybe disbarred from doing so.
Are you alleging THE MISSING WORDS may amount to traces of 'duress' or 'undue pressure' having been removed from the tape by a treatment affected to it?
I raise this point because if the Master Tape was ordered to be opened and examined and found to be identical to the Working Copy Tape then would you be equally saying that the Master Tape has been doctored too?
The above is not to second guess or suggest or coax you, merely I am thinking I should imagine if a Judge in chambers were to order a re-examination the Judge may want to know a considerable amount more.
However before this could even get to a Judge you may want to look here first http//
Also, should you decide to contact the Bar Council see if there are Barristers who could be/might be instructed under the 'Century Brief initiative' (http//
Trewmte, you are absolutely correct in your above post, there is more to this story. I have a letter dated 24 July that concerns a meeting that took place on 23rd July at my current place of work. The meeting was between myself and two serving RAF policemen from the police standards department where a signed sealed master tape was opened. At the time of the meeting and confirmed in the letter I question the authenticity of my signature on the seal.
The arguement used by the police standards, is that the removed portion does not exist, and if it were to exist it is irrelevant because of the latter portions of the tape stating I am happy to proceed without any legal representation. I think they may have a point, so even if I can prove editing I'm still up against it.
This is a portion of text from the report-
"Throughout the recording an echo of the automated clock and beeps is audible on the right channel. The automated clock count and beeps is heard at the forefront and in-between the clock count and beeps another distant clock count and beeps is audible."
If anyone has time Could they explain to me how an additional distant clock count and beeps in-between the echo clock count and beeps could be present on a genuine tape?
I have emailed the company I used to carry out the analysis, but had no reply.
Print through. This is not uncommon in analogue systems where the signal from a part of the tape, when wound round another piece of tape on the spool, 'prints through' to the second piece of tape. This occurs as a result of the fact that you are dealing with material that is effectively magnetic. This would explain the clock being heard at a much reduced level in-between the clock you would expect to hear, the level of the signal printed through being greatly reduced.
Print through. This is not uncommon in analogue systems where the signal from a part of the tape, when wound round another piece of tape on the spool, 'prints through' to the second piece of tape. This occurs as a result of the fact that you are dealing with material that is effectively magnetic. This would explain the clock being heard at a much reduced level in-between the clock you would expect to hear, the level of the signal printed through being greatly reduced.
Thanks for the reply, that makes perfect sense.
Just an update for an old thread-
Around the time I posted this thread I tried to appeal my criminal conviction. I wanted to get to the bottom of this business regarding my interview tape. I did not have an ECHR fair trial because I was dealt with Summerly by my Commanding Officer, so by law I am entitled to a fair trial and tried to appeal.
Neither my Commanding Officer (CO) or myself were aware the charges I was facing would result in a criminal record. Despite my CO believing the charges to be a "bit of a stitch I was denied an appeal by the top military Judge Advocate General. The Service Prosecuting Authority even refused to provide details on what my former CO had thought regarding my case.
https://
I have recently won a High Court consent order declaring the Judge Advocates decision as unlawful and it looks like I will get a fresh trial.
I am not sure if the original tapes and working copies have been destroyed by the RAF police, however I'm certain the tapes have been edited. I can't see how Paul Baker of audioforensicservices.com can state that an unexplained audio drop out at precisely the point I remember being told to waive my right to legal advice can be anything other than edited.
https://
Can anyone on this forum vouch for the credibility of audioforensicservices.com or have I been scammed? There is no record of his company at companies house.