Ian Fitch, Director Santa Clara County Crime Lab
Your crime lab verified that audio/video footage has been removed from a Taser video could you please explain how physically removing evidence from a video is not considered tampering with, editing and falsifying the evidence? CLICK HERE: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/eight.html
Does that include Police Officers who violate the law and Constitution?
On March 23, 2011 I sent you a complaint regarding the production of erroneous crime lab reports by your staff in order to conceal the editing and falsifying of audio/video recordings and taser gun activation data by members of the Palo Alto Police Department. It has been over two years and you have not responded to my inquiry despite the plethora of evidence I have sent you.
For Example Being Two Different Places At Once: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/four.html
Therefore I have some questions for you and the staff involved, Criminalists: Mario Soto, Christopher Corpora and John Bourke. Most of what you will see I have already sent you, so you should be familiar with the evidence provided.
Should you refuse to address my allegations by either refuting them or verifying them I will have to conclude that you are not capable of holding your staff accountable contradicting spokesman Nick Muyo.
“It’s in our best interest to make sure the forensic work is fair and consistent. It’s the DA’s reputation and the reputation of the office,” spokesman Nick Muyo said. “For people who are saying we can’t investigate ourselves, our response is we stand the most to lose so it would behoove us to do a complete and thorough investigation.”
Thus, issuing a statement that you disagree with my findings as DA Jeff Rosen has is not sufficient Mr. Fitch.
DA Jeff Rosen is quoted as stating, “Our criminalists are outstanding forensic scientists who use their skills, experience, and knowledge to solve crimes, enhance transparency and promote justice for the community we serve.”
It is a verifiable fact that the videos and taser gun activation data of the March 15, 2008 incident has been tampered with, the question you need to pose to your staff is why they did not obtain the unadulterated videos and taser gun activation data when it was within their power to do so back in 2008 when your lab was first informed?
The MAV videos were recorded to Tamper proof hard drives in which you could have obtained the original unadulterated videos. Eventually Chief Burns would destroy those hard drives in violation of his department’s policy.
Hard Drives, Click Here: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/two.html
Additionally, why do you and your staff presently refuse to obtain the original recordings and issue truthful analysis of the evidence verifying that the videos and taser guns have been tampered with rendering falsified recordings and data?
Perhaps your office did obtain the original MAV recordings and did not like what you saw and there for suppressed those unadulterated videos to protect the corrupt cops.
Sheriff Laurie Smith’s allegation that there is an inherent conflict of interest in your crime lab being controlled by the DA would be validated should DA Jeff Rosen refuse to allow you to conduct a thorough investigation of the evidence and allegations put forth in this inquiry.
Please keep in mind that upon being informed of the falsified videos on August 18, 2008 the DA’s office allowed the PAPD to hold onto the evidence for at least three weeks and possibly longer. Additionally, it is current Police Chief Dennis Burns who requested the analysis of the falsified evidence, yet he himself was and is involved in the tampering of evidence.
Several felonies were committed by numerous officers in the Palo Alto Police Department corroborated with credible evidence and instead of obtaining a warrant from a judge to obtain the evidence on August 18/19, 2008, the DA allowed the suspects to hold onto the evidence for a minimum of three weeks, probably longer, enabling the suspects to destroy the evidence and determine which evidence to turn over to the DA and your crime lab.
Do you think that’s how it would work if someone provided you with a photograph of numerous bags of cash and white powder being removed from a vehicle and placed into a private garage?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
We shouldn’t be surprised, DDA Deborah Medved and others in the DA’s office, Philip Charlebois, suppressed evidence throughout my criminal case in violation of the law and Constitution, but that is for the next article and the book. http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-2.html See Section I of Exhibit ONE: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-1.html
So Mr. Fitch, lets start with Criminalist Christopher Corpora.
ONE: Mr. Corpora analyzed the Taser Videos and MAV videos to determine if they had been tampered with. Mr. Corpora completed his analysis on or about October 8, 2009.
Since Ofc. Temores’ MAV video did not have any audio, Mr. Corpora mated Temores’ MAV video to Burger’s MAV audio, that’s called editing and falsifying the evidence if you didn’t’ know.
Mr. Corpora, you claim that no editing occurred yet you do not document in your report that the dialog of “your not making it easy” (Statement ‘A’) has been removed from Burger’s MAV recording and the dialog of, “or I’m going to taser you” has been removed from Burger’s Taser recording.
Audio Evidence Here: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/one.html
TWO: It is humanly impossible for the same person to make two separate statements at exactly the same time. Therefore the only explanation as to how the two statements made by Officer Burger at exactly the same time in that the recordings is that the recordings have been tampered with. The above evidence proves that “time” and footage is missing from Burger’s MAV recording and since Burger’s MAV recording is in sync with Temores’ MAV recording the above evidence proves that Temores’ MAV video is missing footage as well.
Mr. Corpora, Officer Temores testified that the battery to his microphone ran out of power which is why there is no audio on his MAV recording, yet you documented that Temores’ MAV system picked up a low-volume audio recording. Can you explain how Temores’ MAV picked up audio when his microphone had no power to pick up any audio? To the average person there shouldn’t be anything heard on the recording because there was NO MICROPHONE to record any audio.
Battery Evidence Here: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/three.html
Though Temores and the PAPD have asserted that his microphone ran out of power, that was highly unlikely given that the battery was fully powered when Temores went on duty.
Since there is audio, how come you did not, “pull it out” as it appears that you are capable of?
There is other evidence of audio editing in the recordings which you can find, that is if you want to find it.
THREE: Mr. Corpora you concluded that there are no scenes recorded on the Taser videos that have not been recorded on Temores’ MAV video.
Here are THREE SCENES that have been recorded onto the taser videos yet were not recorded onto Temores’ MAV video verifying that video footage has been removed from Temores’ MAV video.
Missing Video: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/five.html
FOUR: Mr. Corpora you concluded that the MAV videos have not been tampered with. You even contacted Kustom Signals, the manufacturer of the MAV systems to help with the analysis in which you discuss analyzing the metadata.
Mr. Corpora you are paid a lot of money to conduct professional, thorough and truthful analyses of evidence, how come you chose not to analyze the watermark that is created for the purpose of diagnosing whether a Kustom Signals’ MAV video has been tampered with or not?
FIVE: Palo Alto Police Officer Kelly Burger Testified under Penalty of Perjury that he drew his taser gun TWO separate times from his holster and that his taser gun was in his holster while he pulled me from the vehicle and up against the fence. (Just so you know that’s not what happened, what truly happened has been removed from the video).
The Audio/Video footage from Burger’s own taser video contradicts his statement exposing him as committing perjury in an attempt to explain why there is missing video footage from his taser video.
Burger’s Perjury: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/seven.html
The question you need to ask is, why would Ofc. Burger commit perjury unnecessarily?
SIX: Mr. Corpora you document in your report that there are three breaks in time in both taser videos, yet I only see two breaks in time on the taser videos. Could you point out the third break in time in the taser videos?
Additionally Mr. Corpora, you verified that 4 seconds of audio/video footage is missing from Temores’ Taser video.
How can you conclude that no editing has occurred with this empiricle evidence to the contrary has been produced by you?
Missing Taser Video: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/eight.html
Mr. Corpora given the above empirical evidence, how is possible for you to come to a conclusion that the recordings have not been tampered with?
SEVEN: Mr. Bourke, you initially analyzed the taser cameras, taser gun and taser videos from the original taser hard drive. The falsified taser gun activation report given to the DA states that Temores discharged electricity from his taser gun one time for five seconds, yet Officer Temores testified under penalty of perjury that he discharged electricity two separate times.
Temores Perjury: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/nine.html
Why would Ofc. Temores commit perjury unnecessarily?
EIGHT: Mr. Bourke, in your analysis you do not document downloading the taser gun activation data and comparing it to the taser videos. You downloaded the taser videos directly from the taser cameras with the same cable that is capable of downloading the taser gun activation data and you documented the duration of the videos but you did not document number to times and duration of taser gun discharges, why?
That would have been a very simple, inexpensive and verifiable means to prove or disprove that the taser videos had been tampered with.
Maybe you did download the Taser gun activation data and you didn’t like what saw.
Mr. Bourke you could have figured out that the taser gun data ports had been tampered with by comparing the illuminated taser wire with the taser gun activation data.
Taser Gun Discharge: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/ten.html
NINE: You did note that some of the taser video frames were improperly indexed, (not in chronological order), and tried to access the original download area on the original computer but were prevented from doing so. Instead of gaining access to that area of the computer you chose to cease your investigation.
Bourke Ceases Investigation: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/eleven.html
Why didn’t you want to find out what was on the original taser hard drive? Why didn’t you want to recover the original unadulterated taser videos?
In the process of my civil suit I subsequently proved that both taser guns’ data ports have been tampered with and that Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns submitted falsified taser gun activation data to the courts. http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-6.html
TEN: Officer Burger is heard on his own MAV recording stating that he himself felt electricity from his own taser wires, yet Burger does not come into contact with his taser wires during the two second discharge documented on his activation report. But more, importantly, Andrew Hinz, Taser International’s Director of Technical Services, verified that no electricity was discharged into Ofc. Burger’s taser wires after analyzing those taser wires.
Why would Ofc. Burger without any prompting state that he felt electricity from his taser guns’ taser wires minutes after he fired his taser gun when according the Manufacturer no electricity traveled through the wires?
If no electricity was discharged through Officer Burger’s taser wires, why would officer Burger testify under penalty of perjury to the contrary unnecessarily?
Taser Wire Contradiction: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/twelve.html
The reason why Mr. Hinz documents that no electricity was discharged into Burger’s taser wires is because he did not analyze Burger’s taser wires, he was probably given Temores’ taser wires, the taser wires which Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns has asserted were destroyed in violation of Palo Alto Police Department Policy.
Why was Temores’ taser wires, taser probes and taser cartridge destroyed? They were destroyed because Temores fired two probes from his taser gun during the incident and the audio/video footage of that Taser gun firing has been removed from the videos. See Here: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-5.html
The Palo Alto Police removed Temores’ taser probes, taser wires and taser cartridge from the crime scene and then took photos of the crime scene in order to falsely portray that crime scene with the intent of using that fabricated crime scene to incriminate me with a felony. This act by the PAPD is a violation of P.C. 141(b).
Now Mr. Hinz is the same person who has asserted under penalty of perjury that Taser Camera V07-065373 was first sent to the Palo Alto Police on November 26, 2008, yet the 2008 Taser Download Report documents TASER CAM V07-065373 being downloaded on January 9, 2008, ELEVEN months earlier. And Police Chief Dennis Burns stated that TASER CAM V07-065373 is the TASER CAM he took into possession from Officer Burger on August 29, 2008 and that Officer Burger used this camera on March 15, 2008.
See Evidence Here: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-7.html
So the question is, how did the Palo Alto Police download Taser camera V07-065373 on January 9, 2008 when they did not even possess it at that time?
As incredible as that sounds, Andrew Hinz initially documented that taser cameras V06-015020 and V06-015020 recorded the March 15, 2008 incident and that these two taser cameras were sent to Taser International for repair and subsequently destroyed.
See Evidence Here: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-7.html
Mr. Fitch, even though I have provided you significantly more evidence proving my allegations of tampering than the above, the above is proof enough.
Now that is a lot to digest, however you have had a couple of years to address my allegations but have refused to do so. I had provided evidence of the MAV tampering as early as September 10, 2008.
I know that you and your staff’s perspective of me has been manipulated by the falsified video. All I can say is that your perspective would change if you could see and hear the unadulterated videos.
Mr. Fitch you know that the videos have been edited, given the video footage that remains, why would the PAPD remove video footage unnecessarily? Obviously, Officers Burger, Temores and Wagner did something that they did not want you or anyone else to see and it surely was not something something trivial nature, it must have been something extremely outrageous to motivate them to commit felonies by falsifying the evidence.
Why don’t you obtain that missing video footage and taser gun activation data and then make your decision and evaluation based upon all of the true facts instead basing your view on a fabricated video that is missing 24 to 30 seconds of video footage?
As improbable as that sounds, cogitate on that for a while and think about how Barron Pikes was electrocuted to death from a taser gun by a police officer who refused to stop shocking him even though he was not resisting.
Mr. Fitch, should you ever obtain the unadulterated videos and taser gun activation data you will discover that Officer Burger shocked me for a minimum of 20 seconds, probable closer to 25 seconds.
There are lot of people in the justice system who believe that if a police officer is beating a citizen to death even though that citizen is not resisting, that citizen cannot defend themselves and therefore must allow the police officer to kill them.
Are you one of those people Mr. Fitch?
Suppose a police officer verbally antagonizes and falsely arrests a gang-member who is hanging out on the corner for no apparent reason. And then suppose that officer starts beating on that gang member and steals that gang member’s money and other possessions but lets that gang member go free after he, the cop, takes the gang members possessions. Should this cop be arrested and prosecuted for false arrest, robbery and use of excessive force? Is this a cop whom you would consider a good person and should be a police officer?
Now suppose another police officer does all of the above with the exception of robbery to a person who is not a gang member, to a person who does not have a criminal record, but to a person who is simply just poor and then destroys and falsifies evidence, (falsifies videos), in order to wrongfully incriminate the poor person if a crime to place that poor person in prison simply because that poor person is poor.
Of the two scenarios above, which one is the more serious crime, the more egregious offense and is the greater violation of our society’s morays? Should the cop in example “B” be thoroughly investigated and brought to justice for his acts just as the cop in example ‘”A,” or should you just let him go because most of the time he’s a likable guy?
Stutchman’s Forensic Report: Stutchman’s Report https___ecf.cand.uscourts.gov_cgi-bin_show_temp.pl_file=7384829-0–29335
John Bourke’s Report: 213 Bourke M081017
Christopher Corpora’s Report: 211 Corpora Analysis
Mario Soto’s Report: 212 Soto Analysis
Mr. Soto you verified that the hash values were different indicating that the taser videos had been tampered with according to MIT: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/thirteen.html and