Times Inquiry Police corruption trial to be available on Web
Michael John Smith
It is fairly rare to be able to compare the official court transcript of
a trial against what is actually said by the judge, lawyers and
witnesses. Many of those convicted of offences have complained that
'the judge didn't actually say that' - but it has been hard to prove
whether it was false reporting or poor memory.
Now a trial, that was a major event in the history of Police corruption
cases, is available to check whether the written and audio versions are
the same. John Symonds, an ex-policeman charged with corruption in the
early 1970s (as a result of the 1969 Times Inquiry), has decided to
speak out about the institutionalized corruption that he witnessed
during his time as a member of the Metropolitan Police Force.
John has started a blog: http://romeospy.blogspot.com
and he has started to publish the official court transcript versus the
audio recorded in the Crown Court during his trial. Check it out:
http://www.jar2.com/2/John%20Symonds/The%20Romeo%20Spy.html
You may be unfamiliar with hearing recordings made in British Crown
Courts, but it has been done in the past when the Police have requested
it, as in the John Symonds case. Read the transcript while listening to
the audio, and you will see that the court shorthand reporters can be
ordered to change what was said during the trial - a very important
point when it comes to whether the convicted person will be allowed to
make an appeal.
--
Michael John Smith
Cynic
<Michael.John....@legalbanter.co.uk> wrote:
>and he has started to publish the official court transcript versus the
>audio recorded in the Crown Court during his trial. Check it out:
>http://www.jar2.com/2/John%20Symonds/The%20Romeo%20Spy.html
>You may be unfamiliar with hearing recordings made in British Crown
>Courts, but it has been done in the past when the Police have requested
>it, as in the John Symonds case. Read the transcript while listening to
>the audio, and you will see that the court shorthand reporters can be
>ordered to change what was said during the trial - a very important
>point when it comes to whether the convicted person will be allowed to
>make an appeal.
Before I spend considerable time comparing a transcript with the audio
recording, could you give an example or two of places where there
is/are significant differences that would give rise to a suspicion of
deliberate dishonesty?
--
Cynic
Michael John Smith
I am surprised that nobody has commented on the link of the Times
Inquiry to the Operation Countryman Police corruption investigation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Countryman
--
Michael John Smith
Mike Smith
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 20:04:26 +0100, Michael John Smith
>
There's no way I can do justice to the total number of alterations to
the official written transcript, but I have found a few examples of
typical modifications that have been made to change the meaning to
doctor the transcript so that it would deny John Symonds the chance of
an appeal (which it did). For example, I have concentrated mainly on
claims that words on the tapes were "inaudible" and could not be
transcribed. This was clearly not the case in the examples I have
chosen, but the judge R.A.R. Stroyan and prosecutor Geoffrey Rivlin QC
decided that this was to delete any comments or words spoken by the
judge, any one of which could have led to a successful appeal.
Audio01
at 0 min 11 sec
page 1A: “inordinate” (excessive, unwarranted) changed to “awful”
at 24 min 8 sec
page 6G: “then the corruption you may believe is perfectly obvious”
changed to “then the corruption is … (inaudible)”
Audio02
19 min 25 sec
page 18D: “advice” changed to (inaudible)
19 min 49 sec
page18E: “advice” changed to (inaudible)
Audio03
15 min 12 sec
page 30E: “to con Perry” changed to (inaudible)
25 min 44 sec
page 33C: “the defendant’s submissions about Perry Your Honour, you
said Perry’s submissions Your Honour” changed to (inaudible)
I would be grateful for anybody who does go to the trouble of checking
these discrepancies in the transcript, to put their points up here for
comment about why the changes were made.
Mike Smith
The answer to this is that John Symonds is the link. He was one of the
Police officers who had to answer allegations made by the Times, and a
few years later he was the major informant to Operation Countryman,
which led the forced resignation of hundreds of Police officers and
the imprisonment of a large number of officers, particularly those
senior corrupt detectives who had instigated and led the Times
Inquiry. Commander Wally Virgo and Detective Chief Superintendent Bill
Moody (the main persecutors of Symonds), who had led the Times Inquiry
into Symonds and others, were both sentenced to 18 years imprisonment
as a result of the information given to the instigators of the
Operation Countryman inquiry by Symonds.
Cynic
<pare...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>at 0 min 11 sec
>page 1A: �inordinate� (excessive, unwarranted) changed to �awful�
>
>at 24 min 8 sec
>page 6G: �then the corruption you may believe is perfectly obvious�
>changed to �then the corruption is � (inaudible)�
>
>Audio02
>
>19 min 25 sec
>page 18D: �advice� changed to (inaudible)
>
>19 min 49 sec
>page18E: �advice� changed to (inaudible)
>
>Audio03
>
>15 min 12 sec
>page 30E: �to con Perry� changed to (inaudible)
>
>25 min 44 sec
>page 33C: �the defendant�s submissions about Perry Your Honour, you
>said Perry�s submissions Your Honour� changed to (inaudible)
>
>I would be grateful for anybody who does go to the trouble of checking
>these discrepancies in the transcript, to put their points up here for
>comment about why the changes were made.
The examples you cite can be put down to a poor recording or poor
playback machine making some of the words unintelligible, or in the
first case a perfectly common transcription error, probably because
the person transcribing it was not familiar with the word "inordinate"
and substituted a word that fitted the context. I don't see that any
of your examples have any significant importance wrt allowing an
appeal.
--
Cynic
Mike Smith
You have clearly not listened to those parts of the recording I have
pointed you to, otherwise you must need your ears syringing to improve
the auditory route to your brain. It is obvious to anyone who does
listen to these recordings that the judge and the prosecution QC have
made numerous alterations, that have nothing whatsoever to do with
either poor recordings or unintelligible words. Also, it is not
necessary to change so much of a judge's summing up because the
shorthand writer didn't understand a particular word or two. Clearly,
you have no explanation for the level of judicial corruption that has
gone on in John Symonds trial, or perhaps YOU are an apologist for
this type of behaviour, where judges can simply edit out the things
they realise they should not have said in front of the jury?
What reveals your mental mind set is your last comment. I don't expect
you to understand all the nuances of this trial, but the words that
were claimed to be unintelligible, and the words and phrases that were
deleted and/or altered in some way, were done for a definite reason.
Why do you think the word "advice" was cut out twice within a few
lines - because that word had an important meaning within the context
of this trial? These numerous changes were made because they were
necessary to protect the judge, and to ensure that John Symonds
opportunity to win an appeal would be minimised.
Your feeble attempts to support corrupt judiciary will not prevent the
truth being exposed. All those who want to see fair trials will be
shocked when they realise how much editorial power the judge has over
official court records. We are not talking about spelling mistakes
here, but a corrupt cover-up.
Mike Smith
do you? Just stick to the facts in future and you might just have a
chance of standing your ground.
Mike Smith
listening to confirm the points I made to you. I did some listing of
discrepancies for you, and in just the first 45 minutes of the Summing
Up I came up with a good list of corrupt editing by the Judge Stroyan.
Just check this list and tell me what I got wrong:
http://www.jar2.com/2/John%20Symonds/The%20Romeo%20Spy.html
I think you must agree that no British judge should be tampering with
an "official" court transcript in this way.
Mike Smith
technique, whereby any word that could cause a ground of appeal
suddenly becomes "inaudible", and therefore no longer a danger when
the Court of Appeal looks at the judge's summing up. Who would dare to
say that an "inaudible" word was actually "audible" to the court
reporters? You cannot criticise the rule of a judge, who can change at
will anything he/she didn't like in the court records!
Forgive me for being a cynic, but it is quite obvious that judges
"doctor" their summing up in many (if not most) of their trials. It is
clearly a technique that has been going on for decades. The fact that
we have caught out Angus Stroyan, by having access to both the audio
and the written version of his summing up, merely proves that the
great hypocrisy of the British judiciary is a live and kicking. Long
live corrupt judges, what jolly fellows they are - pissed as newts and
wearing kilts, and tossing their cabers no doubt.