Police planting evidence.

[LS]

Yes, the hard drive had been brand new and had never been connected to the Internet.

It would appear to me that the forensic examiner simply pretended to have found more than 2000 indecent images. The big question is why? He had no axe to grind with me. He made a signed statement to the effect that he had found more than 2000 indecent images on my PC. Surely he would have known that to give false evidence amounts to perjury?

Forget the internet bit, that's a red herring, because they could have been downloaded from a memory stick.
Only you will know what was on that hard drive and what wasn't, but your legal team should be making enquiries about the date(s) those images were put on the hard drive.
If those date(s) are earlier/before you bought the hard drive, and you have a receipt proving so, then you should have nothing to worry about.

Personally, I'd be itching to find out what constitutes those indecent images. Are they images of adult porn (where the usual police & CPS method of verifying if the subjects are adults or teenage children usually amounts to pin the tail on the donkey, aka guesswork), or are they images that would suggest that an investigation needs to be carried out about who has had your hard drive before you bought it.

[sooty]

Forget the internet bit, that's a red herring, because they could have been downloaded from a memory stick.
Only you will know what was on that hard drive and what wasn't, but your legal team should be making enquiries about the date(s) those images were put on the hard drive.
If those date(s) are earlier/before you bought the hard drive, and you have a receipt proving so, then you should have nothing to worry about.

Personally, I'd be itching to find out what constitutes those indecent images. Are they images of adult porn (where the usual police & CPS method of verifying if the subjects are adults or teenage children usually amounts to pin the tail on the donkey, aka guesswork), or are they images that would suggest that an investigation needs to be carried out about who has had your hard drive before you bought it.

1. Yes. I do know what had been on the hard drive and know too that there had been no indecent images.

2. I had no memory sticks, CDs or other hard drives with which I could possibly have embedded 2000 indecent images onto the PC.

3. I have reason to believe that a police officer has been either sacked or suspended concerning the falsification of evidence since the computer was seized more than two years ago.

4. I have been told by people who repair computers that nothing can be embedded onto a hard drive that is password protected.

5. The police case had been in a criminal Court. My case is in a civil Court. I again rest my case for further comment.

[LS]

Tiny memory sticks can contain illegal images of children and can be used by police officers to embed porn onto the hard drives of seized computers prior to the computer/s concerned being sent for forensic examination.

So your comment (4) in the previous post makes it clear that the scenario above cannot happen. If it's impossible to embed items in a hard drive that is password protected, then tiny memory sticks are of no use to a bent cop and a bent computer examiner, as they won't be able to embed anything.

At the end of the day, it's not rare for the other side to "hide" information about a previous case that would impact a trial happening today. Had it happen to me but in a different format, they took my accusers to court for not sending their kids to school, the week after they lied left right and centre in court in my trial. Outside court, the education chief stated my accusers were liars.
Had that trial taken place before mine, my case would have had a totally different outcome, but they deliberately held it back in order to influence my case.

I wish you luck with your computer stuff, but I'm at a loss. They shouldn't be able to add info, and even if they could, there'd be a paper trail. That's something you need to chase up.

[sooty]

So your comment (4) in the previous post makes it clear that the scenario above cannot happen. If it's impossible to embed items in a hard drive that is password protected, then tiny memory sticks are of no use to a bent cop and a bent computer examiner, as they won't be able to embed anything.

At the end of the day, it's not rare for the other side to "hide" information about a previous case that would impact a trial happening today. Had it happen to me but in a different format, they took my accusers to court for not sending their kids to school, the week after they lied left right and centre in court in my trial. Outside court, the education chief stated my accusers were liars.
Had that trial taken place before mine, my case would have had a totally different outcome, but they deliberately held it back in order to influence my case.

I wish you luck with your computer stuff, but I'm at a loss. They shouldn't be able to add info, and even if they could, there'd be a paper trail. That's something you need to chase up.

1. I happen to know for certain that the police concerned are in the business of planting evidence.

2. The scenario is subject to some if's and but's as usual.

3. If no puzzle existed then I would not be airing my gripes on a forum as I have today.

4. I defended myself and nobody had seen the alleged 2000 indecent images, not even the CPS. I certainly have not seen them.

5. The police applied for and obtained an Order of the Court to destroy the alleged evidence.

How can a forensic examiner claim to have found 2000 indecent images that had never existed?

[LS]

More strange is the CPS didn't see the images either. That's got to be a world first. They HAVE to see them in order to work out if they warrant a prosecution, and what class they are in, to gauge the severity.
I am however not surprised at the destruction order. I believe that happens to any media containing indecent images.

[sooty]

More strange is the CPS didn't see the images either. That's got to be a world first. They HAVE to see them in order to work out if they warrant a prosecution, and what class they are in, to gauge the severity.

''More strange'' is an understatement. It is quite diabolical that I should have been charged before the police had even submitted their alleged evidence to the CPS. I understand that the CPS are immune from civil actions.

I strongly suspect that the CPS nationwide have a habit of failing to read statements and ensuring that they have a case to pursue. If I am correct, then there are likely to be many people doing time for nothing.

[Casehardened]

Hi,

I have been reading this thread with interest but have not contributed as my technical knowledge of computers is not sufficient.

However you are effectively saying that the police have made a false accusation against you and on this forum we usually ask those accused to consider why this accusation might have been made as this can contribute to their defence; don't know if you had any thoughts about this (obviously don't post up a response if the reason the police initially seized your computer is sensitive or confidential!)

[sooty]

Hi,

I have been reading this thread with interest but have not contributed as my technical knowledge of computers is not sufficient.

However you are effectively saying that the police have made a false accusation against you and on this forum we usually ask those accused to consider why this accusation might have been made as this can contribute to their defence; don't know if you had any thoughts about this (obviously don't post up a response if the reason the police initially seized your computer is sensitive or confidential!)

Eight years ago, I made a number of formal complaints to the IPCC concerning the criminal activities of a police officer. He was either sacked or resigned in order to avoid disciplinary proceedings. His partners in crime have never forgiven me and have conducted a campaign of harassment and falsified allegations against me for eight long years. I was even warned not to make complaints against police officers. Unfortunately, such threats bounce off and I am not deterred.

What they (the police) fail to comprehend is that I have been building up my civil case against them. It is they themselves that have provided me with all the necessary evidence.

[RFLH]

we know the police read this forum - you have given out enough information to be readily identified - not sure if its been the wisest move. If they didn't like you before - they sure aren't going to now.

Didn't you ask for proof of what was on your computer? There should be a huge file of paperwork giving times it was downloaded onto your computer - 2000? There should be a hefty pile of it, your legal team should have copies.

[sooty]

we know the police read this forum - you have given out enough information to be readily identified - not sure if its been the wisest move. If they didn't like you before - they sure aren't going to now.

Didn't you ask for proof of what was on your computer? There should be a huge file of paperwork giving times it was downloaded onto your computer - 2000? There should be a hefty pile of it, your legal team should have copies.

A forensic report showed that the computer had never been connected to the Internet. The report falsely stated that the computer had contained more than 2000 indecent images. The CPS, a Jury and a firm of defence solicitors had never seen these images. I too have never seen them and know for certain that my computer did not contain them.

The most puzzling part of it all is why would a forensic examiner falsely state in writing that a computer had contained 2000 illegal images when in fact it had not?

This forensic examiner is going to required to produce such evidence in a civil Court sooner or later.

Insofar as the police are concerned, they do not scare me because they are just people in jobs that can come to a swift end.

[Casehardened]

The most puzzling part of it all is why would a forensic examiner falsely state in writing that a computer had contained 2000 illegal images when in fact it had not?

What has happened to this computer?

If it still exists surely the obvious course of action is for the defence team to have it re-examined by another forensic laboratory.

[sooty]

What has happened to this computer?

If it still exists surely the obvious course of action is for the defence team to have it re-examined by another forensic laboratory.

If the computer still exists is not known to me. However, a firm of solicitors dealing with an appeal has applied for LA funding for it to be re-examined.

[Rights Fighter]

Sorry, just on my way out, but I have to butt in. I have no love for the police, but the chances of this happening are extremely remote, relating to adding anything to your pc.

Firstly, the pc would need to be switched on and running.
Police usually turn up between 4am-7am. So why is your pc switched on while you're asleep?

Second, it can only happen after you have been arrested and taken to a police station.
The image/item's EXIF-type data would show when it was created/moved/last accessed, and this will show a date and time that you have alibi proof for (arrest sheet) that shows you were in custody at that time and thus could not have placed it on your pc.

Third, pc's are bagged and sealed at seizure.
Every time thereafter the item is unsealed, a log has to be made of it and who by, and for what purpose.

The advice I would give to everyone is get used to switching your pc off after you finish using it. Never leave it switched on when you're not in front of it. That way, no one can add anything to it but you.

LS out.

Good to see you on here LS. I was wondering how you are.

Once a computer is in police custody it will have been processed with relevant paperwork as to when it was received. Anything that is found on there dated AFTER the police have seized it would be very suspect.

I was involved in a trial where some images were dated and timed AFTER the police had seized it. They still tried to get him prosecuted for that but it was not admitted into the evidence due to the doubt surrounding it. Of course no investigation into how it got there was gone into......

[sooty]

Good to see you on here LS. I was wondering how you are.

Once a computer is in police custody it will have been processed with relevant paperwork as to when it was received. Anything that is found on there dated AFTER the police have seized it would be very suspect.

I was involved in a trial where some images were dated and timed AFTER the police had seized it. They still tried to get him prosecuted for that but it was not admitted into the evidence due to the doubt surrounding it. Of course no investigation into how it got there was gone into......

I witnessed a police officer planting a screwdriver into the pocket of a friend in 1959 so I know what they get up to.

I have also been the victim of a police officer planting printed images and have retained the evidence.

[Rik]

....and I have the cops saying they didnt turn up at my address and try to obtain a signed confession. The badge numbers don't exist, the police car has to be faketoo, etc etc,

Yet it has been filmed!