Locked in car park

[kiptower]

your 100% BRW correct, same as I was saying to martin when i saw the bit about the footage

 

Patma i think the most important thing is you get Fred along to the Police urgently and get it sorted

 

to quote was i was saying to Martin

 

I would just take the video they sent to the police , an inspector or above and get them to watch it and them ask for the caution to be removed , if not after seeing it complain to the IPCC miscarriage of justice etc

[MARTIN3030]

You can only tick without a hearing if the other side are in agreement to your application-which they obviously wouldnt be.

In the box that says level of Judge-its District Judge or Deputy District Judge.

Parties to be served-Claimants (Court will send it to whoever they have on file as accepting docs)

[Toulose LeDebt]

Agree with those who feel the video 100% exonerates Fred. The barrier was clearly damaged and out of position before Fred arrived. The claimant claims the barrier to have been in the down position locked in place (PoC part 3) which is yet another false claim made to the Court.

 

Any solicitor should have asked for the footage before this event to establish who was responsible for leaving the barrier hanging out of position as it quite obviously was not Fred!!

 

The video is unequivocal evidence that the barrier was damaged prior to Freds arrival at the scene and makes the claimants claim appear scurrillous to me.

[Patma]

Hi BRW,kiptower, Martin, TLD,

Thanks for your comments everyone. It seems to be a stroke of luck that we were given this unedited footage.

Fred has also pointed out that in the letters he got pre-court action he was being accused of malicious and intentionally damaging the barrier and this footage shows there was no criminal intent. (I think it's called mens rea).

Fred has also remembered that the tape the police were given had no time and date on it. Don't know what significance this might have, but maybe it was removed to hide the editing (that's just my guesswork:))

 

Have you been able to watch the Video now TLD?

 

If anyone else would like to see it, if only just for interest, please just let me know and I'll gladly send it as I did to TLD.

My Real Name is helping me with getting it properly uploaded, but I'm unable to log in to you tube so far and can't work out why.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Yes I've seen it thanks Patma. Apart from the obvious problem the claimant has that the barrier was already broken when the video starts rolling :D

the ease with which Fred lifts the barrier one handed is astonishing. I think you've been very lucky to get this copy the time stamping is invaluable.

 

(I've split the video down into single frames so you have a choice of stills from the clip to use as photographic evidence).

 

First frame of video- Note the barrier is NOT in the cradle but hanging down beside the cradle. Time 12:43 22secs

 

 

First frame of video which shows Fred arriving at barrier.

12:45 25 secs

 

 

 

And just for reference this final picture shows the barrier in the correct position after Fred lifted it from the position in which he found it and put it in the cradle. This is the position in which the claimant alleges the barrier was when Fred arrived on the scene. The time shows you Fred had already spent 5 minutes trying to contact security.

 

[middenmess]

This must be the best piece of prosecution evidence ever to be given to a defendant!!!

 

I've had sympathy with 'Fred' from post 1 but to see this and have confirmed the devious means by which the college has stooped to stitch 'Fred' up is gob-smacking!

 

Onwards to victory AND suitable compensation for this grief.

[foolishgirl]

Fred has also remembered that the tape the police were given had no time and date on it. Don't know what significance this might have, but maybe it was removed to hide the editing (that's just my guesswork:))

 

 

Hi Patma, only just picked up on this very interesting thread from another link so sorry if I'm repeating anything already said but I seem to recall that (certainly in criminal cases) photographic evidence is not permissable or accceptable unless it has the date digitally encoded on the print, the same i suspect, would apply to video.

[buzby]

For clarification - it is called a 'digital watermark' and has nothing to do with the time info being shown in as part of or burned into the image. This can always be added later and is not accepted for evidential purposes. Providing it forms the part of the video baseline timecode, it will stand scrutiny.

[Annoying Twit]

I don't claim detailed knowledge of the law and courts. But something seems wrong to me about the way the court, the judge, and the barrister are acting. It almost seems to me as if they have contempt for Fred, as a presumably ignorant member of the public, which is why they're prepared to just fob him off (counterclaim not detailed enough) and why they seem

 

With the film as it is, surely an independent engineer would give an opinion as to (i) whether or not the damaged claimed was already evident before Fred "interfered" with the barrier, and (ii) whether or not the claimed damage was consistent with Fred's actions.

 

I'd like to see the whole film, but can't offer any proper opinion. I'm just a nosy b'tard.

[MARTIN3030]

Game over for the College.

The video shows beyond any doubt that the barrier is out of sync with the cradle rest.

[Annoying Twit]

I may have missed it, but has the college ever said exactly what the damage was?

[Toulose LeDebt]

I may have missed it, but has the college ever said exactly what the damage was?

 

Now that is a perfectly valid question to ask and here is the answer.

 

No.

 

They have supplied a quote for 'damage to motor and linkage gear'

 

The problem with that is the quote was dated AFTER the barrier was REPLACED.

 

They have supplied a bad copy of an invoice for a new barrier but this was nearly three weeks after the date of the incident and only shows they had a new barrier installed.

 

Fred has attempted for two years to get the college to disclose the damage to no avail.

 

Fred has attempted to force the college to reveal the damage using CPR to no avail.

 

Fred has asked the Court to force the college to reveal the damage to no avail.

 

The Judge decided the damage was irrelevant.

 

There is no evidence of damage other than the evidence which proves the barrier was ALREADY damaged before Fred entered the car park on foot.

 

Hey ho!!!

[Yorky2008]

Hi Patma,

 

Right finally got chance to view the video you emailed me, my initials thoughts, obviously based purely on visual evidence from the footage.

 

1) The barrier is out of the cradle - as noted aleady

 

2) The barrier can be seen moving/swinging in the wind, this in itself would put stress on the barrier mechanism - especially if is as fragile as they claim!

 

3) The barrier is obviouslt not been maintained properly if it is missing the cradle on descent.

 

4) The angle of the rop appears almost consistent with that that Fred lifts it, suggests to me that more than likely a lot of play in already worn gear linkage system! Def put thispoint across again for the maintenace records!

 

5) Fred does not appear to force the barrier, a fact supported by the fact it appears he casually lifts it with one hand. If he was forcing it I would have expected to see him struggling and with two hands.

 

6) Unfortunately dont see footage of barrier dropping down again, do you have this? If so does the barrier go back into cradle or back to drooping position?

 

My initial 2p

 

Yorky

[Guest bryan1978]

The college has bin informed of this forum

[kiptower]

is that a problem ? , def not for our Fred, but could be for those that made faulse allagations against him

[Patma]

This must be the best piece of prosecution evidence ever to be given to a defendant!!!

That's priceless! :D

 

I've had sympathy with 'Fred' from post 1 but to see this and have confirmed the devious means by which the college has stooped to stitch 'Fred' up is gob-smacking!

 

Onwards to victory AND suitable compensation for this grief.

I've had such fun reading the comments now that you've all been looking at the video evidence. It almost makes the whole farce worth it.

Thanks so much TLD for organising it after I got bogged down by technology:?

[Patma]

Yorky, thanks for checking out the video with an experienced eye.

 

6) Unfortunately dont see footage of barrier dropping down again, do you have this? If so does the barrier go back into cradle or back to drooping position?

When I first saw the video, I thought the barrier went back to it's original position, but I was wrong. All I was seeing was the video going back to the starting position ready to run again.

[Patma]

The college has bin informed of this forum

 

Hello bryan and welcome to CAG. I see this is your first post.

[Toulose LeDebt]

The college has bin informed of this forum

 

 

With permission:

 

The car park video.

 

Youtube

 

(Watch it and weep Bryan)

Edited July 3, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[kiptower]

Pat if the spelling is anything to go by the education there leave's a lot to be desired ;)

 

maybe it was from their head of law "bin"

[Patma]

Pat if the spelling is anything to go by the education there leave's a lot to be desired ;)

 

maybe it was from their head of law "bin"

Artistic licence:D

[Toulose LeDebt]

The college has bin informed of this forum

 

 

Hi Bryan I guess you're at this college in some capacity though obviously not doing an english course.

 

I trust when the college representatives get your message and look through this thread they realise the following:

 

The evidence against their claim is overwhelming.

 

Their claim is full of innacuracies and false statements.

 

Their claim is ill founded, scurrilous and vexatious.

 

There is proof that the barrier was damaged before the defendant ever entered the car park on the day in question.

 

The important legal information which is going to cause the claimant severe difficulties and could lead to a criminal investigation has been passed by private message.:p

 

And that having taken this on board the college then takes into account the fact that they and their/the insurers solicitors have hounded an INNOCENT man and have been responsible for getting an INNOCENT man a criminal record and subjected this INNOCENT man to several years of mental torture and stress when they consult their legaladvisers with a view to discontinuing this malicious persecution of 'FRED' and that any compensatory offer they feel might stop FRED from pursuing them for compensation through the Courts is sufficient recompense for the pigs breakfast of a case they have put him through out of what I can only believe has been a mixture of crass ignorance and spite.

 

I trust they have also realised by this stage that FRED has the support of a number of people who will give him the support and advice he needs to pursue this matter to a favourable conclusion and that no matter what false yet temporary hurdles they might throw in his way he will reach that satisfactory conclusion at some stage.

 

Kind Regards.

 

TLD.

[JonCris]

MARTIN clear your in box please there's a good chap:D

[Annoying Twit]

On looking at the video on youtube, there appears to be quite a varied and interesting set of videos listed as "related videos" over on the right hand side.

 

[royboy68]

In reply to Bryan1978 comment about the college being informed maybe it would be a good idea if the press were also informed. Lets have it all in the open.