Judge John Samuels
Lee Tracey
In the Blackfriars Court last Thursday, before Judge John Samuels, I was an
expert witness. During all the previous days of the trial the Judge had
been really trying to help the young woman prosecution barrister. Even to
the extent that the defence barrister made a serious complaint to him and
demanded that he stop.
After I had given evidence and I was no longer in the court, it appears that
Samuels made some serious accusations against me. I was called back into
court and told that I would not be paid but that I would hear from the court
in a few days etc, etc. I asked for an explanation. Samules refused to
give one but delegated the role to the defence barrister. Outside the court
the defence barrister refused to talk to me.
I asked the defence solicitor but none had the guts to tell me what was
going on.
My evidence would totally destroy the prosecution so it seems to me that
Samules had to get rid of me by some trick or other. What he sued I do not
know but as lawyers seem petrified of judges they all clammed up.
Does anybody have any idea of what action I can take or are judges so immune
to democracy that they can do as they like?
Lee Tracey
TonyB
"Lee Tracey" <leet...@ision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bdiek6$pe6$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Wow, you must have really cheesed him off!
I think you can write to the court asking for a copy of the judgement. Of
course you could be held to be in contempt of the court if you said
something that was patently untrue or if you misbehaved in some way.
Don't know if the law society can help?
TonyB
>
Steve Walker
> In the Blackfriars Court last Thursday, before Judge John Samuels, I
> was an expert witness. During all the previous days of the trial the
> Judge had been really trying to help the young woman prosecution
> barrister. Even to the extent that the defence barrister made a
> serious complaint to him and demanded that he stop.
> After I had given evidence and I was no longer in the court, it
> appears that Samuels made some serious accusations against me. I was
> called back into court and told that I would not be paid but that I
> would hear from the court in a few days etc, etc. I asked for an
> explanation. Samules refused to give one but delegated the role to
> the defence barrister. Outside the court the defence barrister
> refused to talk to me.
> My evidence would totally destroy the prosecution so it seems to me
> that Samules had to get rid of me by some trick or other.
Something odd here..... You describe yourself as an expert witness,
can I ask on what basis? If you are an accredited expert (along the
lines of www.ewi.org.uk) then I'm surprised by your comments.
If you are a professional expert witness, instructed by the defence and
paid from court funds, then it would seem there's a very serious problem
with your evidence. You'd be concerned about this, because of the
effect upon your credibility, and you would certainly need to follow it
up.
Noting your comments about early events in the case, and also your
assertion that the Judge was seeking to pervert the course of justice,
it seems unlikely to me that you were an expert witness in the orthodox
sense. If so, it's possible that the Court was disappointed in the
quality of your contribution?
Lee Tracey
listed.
Lee Tracey
"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:bdk6dk$22m$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Steve Walker
> I did send a reply to Steve Walker but it does not appear to have been
> listed.
Probably fallen through a hole in the internet, best re-send..... :o)
Lee Tracey
> REPLY TO STEVE WALKER
many thanks for your input though it does contain some citicism of me but on
an assumed responsibility basis. I am an electronics engineer and this was
my very first appearance as an expert witness. My clash with the judge and
the prosecution concerned the performance of a Spectrum Analyser. In the
court it showed no received signals other than a 2 watt transmitter being
operated in the actual courtroom. I was not allowed to go near or touch the
Spectrum Analyser or any of the exhibits and had been refused all access to
them previously.
In the real world the Spectrum Analyser should show a vast array of signals
of varying height, including the TX being operated in the courtroom. But
the Analyser showed only the courtoom TX, the rest of the span was noise
floor.
My argument with the judge and the prosecution was that such a display was
false. That the courtroom, built of heavy concrete with many steel
reinforcing bars and NO windows was acting like a Faraday cage - not a real
Faraday Cage but enough to cause very heavy attentuation of outside signals.
In addition I maintained that the Analyser had been set to an artificially
high attenuation factor.
The aspect that the judge accepted, against my protests, was that the
courtroom could not be a Faraday Cage or like one as a Faraday Cage was made
of copper and the courtroom was obviously not made of copper.
That is absolute crap but a jury will believe it because the judge supported
it.
The other aspect is that the prosecution produced a photograph of the screen
of the Analyser which also showed only the single trace of the specified TX,
and none other. They claimed that they had made this in a fifth floor
office, with windows, in Victoria Street during the busy day. Every RF
engineer in the world will tell you that such a claim is false. It is
impossible to achieve if a normal wideband whip antenna is fitted to the
Analyser.
I maintained that this was also a false presentation and that the only way
it could have been achieved is with the transmitter connected directly to
the Analyser via a hard cable.
In consequence it means that I am accusing the prosecution ( a government
law enforcement agency)
of cooking the evidence.
That is totally beyond the acceptance of Samuels.
Now you Mr Walker, sound like a person who believes that all law enforcement
people are lilly white saints who never twist the evidence. Just like
Samuels.
Could I draw your attention to the newspapers printed today. They are full
of a a story of a number of Flying Squad officers sent to prison for theft
etc.
I might add that I have already received a response from a University
Professor offering to back me on both the Spectrum Analyser aspects and the
courtroom Faraday cage aspects - I published the full technical facts in
another newsgroup.
However in your world of saints and real justice Mr Walker there is no route
or avenue for me to respond or set the record straight. I cannot sue the
judge or force a new hearing. The total fabrication of fact, or lies as I
prefer to call them, are now lodged with the jury and I expect another
innocent person is about to go to prison accused of a "crime" he could not
commit with the equipment he had.
What crime: He is accused of using a Spectrum Analyser to listen to Customs
and Excise surveillance transmissions.
The fact that Customs and Excise used a Cougar radio system that has digital
encryption of such a high standard that not even MI5/MI6/CIA/FBI/NSA could
decode, appears to mean nothing in the court.
A QC commented to me when I protested very loudly outside the court:
"..you will get used to it old chap! Being innocent or guilty has nothing
to do with it. It all depends on who has the best story and who can
manipulate the laws.
No wonder we have a crime ridden Country.
Lee Tracey
>
>
>
>
>
Steve Walker
> many thanks for your input though it does contain some citicism of me
> but on an assumed responsibility basis. I am an electronics engineer
> and this was my very first appearance as an expert witness.
Thanks for clarifying that. Baptism of fire, eh?
> My clash
> with the judge and the prosecution concerned the performance of a
> Spectrum Analyser. In the court it showed no received signals other
> than a 2 watt transmitter being operated in the actual courtroom. I
> was not allowed to go near or touch the Spectrum Analyser or any of
> the exhibits and had been refused all access to them previously.
Can I ask what the purpose of your appearance was then? If you'd not
been allowed to inspect or test the equipment, it might have contained
nothing more than a toilet roll wired to a PP3.
Presumably you were there to "de-bunk" the prosecution case, by
dramatically demonstrating that the equipment did or didn't do
something, but it refused to co-operate on the day? That must be
very frustrating......
> The other aspect is that the prosecution produced a photograph of the
> screen of the Analyser which also showed only the single trace of the
> specified TX, and none other. They claimed that they had made this
> in a fifth floor office, with windows, in Victoria Street during the
> busy day. Every RF engineer in the world will tell you that such a
> claim is false. It is impossible to achieve if a normal wideband whip
> antenna is fitted to the Analyser.
> I maintained that this was also a false presentation and that the
> only way it could have been achieved is with the transmitter
> connected directly to the Analyser via a hard cable.
> In consequence it means that I am accusing the prosecution ( a
> government law enforcement agency)
> of cooking the evidence.
Because the equipment didn't function as you had hoped, eg by providing
a cast-iron demonstration of the defence's case, you were forced to rely
upon your professional opinion alone (which the judge rejected after
some legal advocacy from the parties)?
> That is totally beyond the acceptance of Samuels.
> Now you Mr Walker, sound like a person who believes that all law
> enforcement people are lilly white saints who never twist the
> evidence. Just like Samuels.
Don't waste your time trying to pigeonhole me - I support and condemn as
I wish, and I've plenty of track record here in criticising the state
and it's organs.
> I might add that I have already received a response from a University
> Professor offering to back me on both the Spectrum Analyser aspects
> and the courtroom Faraday cage aspects - I published the full
> technical facts in another newsgroup.
It sounds perfectly plausible to me - it's common-sense that large
building dampen radio signals, so I'm sure you're right about that.
> cannot sue the judge or force a new hearing. The total fabrication
> of fact, or lies as I prefer to call them, are now lodged with the
> jury and I expect another innocent person is about to go to prison
> accused of a "crime" he could not commit with the equipment he had.
> What crime: He is accused of using a Spectrum Analyser to listen to
> Customs and Excise surveillance transmissions.
But the defendant can appeal, and if you are correct about the technical
stuff he will easily win. You're being unduly apocalyptic about this
Lee, if you don't mind me saying so. I'm sure it's infuriating for you
on a personal level to have your advice ignored, but that's a risk for
any expert witness. The barrister is right - you can't afford to take
it personally, and you mustn't assume that by ignoring your advice the
Judge is obviously corrupt.
Finally - do you happen to know why the C&E chose to raid this
particular chap? It seems an extraordinary coincidence that they
should pick a home at random, and find someone using this kit. Was
there perhaps some reason why they might have suspected that he was
snooping on them?
Lee Tracey
Steve:
The facts are that he was working for a man who is, without doubt, a serious
criminal and one who took C & E for a few £million. So a very good reason
for hitting him. He was convicted and sentenced to five years, probably
served 18 months.
The guy accused worked for him in his firm as a £13,000 per year "techie" to
look after the computers and some complicated electronioc banking hardware
and software.
The above is fact and not disputed by anybody.
What the accused guy claims is that when his boss was put away the law guys
saw in him a potential great informer. He worked for a top criminal and, in
consequence, met hundreds of other top criminals who associated with his
boss and, because he worked for the criminal boss, was trusted by the
others. Makes sense that such a target could be a very uselful informer.
According to the accused he refused. Not for any reason other than he
feared the criminal element more than he feared the police and C & E. The
accused claims that this trial is revenge for refusing.
I have no way of knowing the truth or otherwise of the above.
What is significant is that the accused is a licenced radio ham and as such
owns a lot of ham radio gear and scanning radio gear and a spectrum
analyser.
What the accused claims is that this provided the C & E with a rod to beat
him with as they could twist the facts and say that he was using the gear to
keep tabs on the police and the C & E to warn his boss of law enforcement
surveillance.
Again impossible to know but one can put an opinion on that.
To make the above stick it is necessary to show that the accused knew that
his boss was involved in a major VAT fraud. Again - how can we know either
way?
What is significant to me is that if I was the criminal boss making
£millions from a fraud I would not tell a £13,000 a year employee for if I
did that employee could blackmail me into giving him £100,000 per year.
All that actually concerns me is that the equipment siezed from the accused
could not perform the tasks claimed. I can back up my claims with pure math.
The inverse square law and root mean square law prove otherwise and there
are many other hard technical factors.
The aspect that has infuriated me is that some of my fellow engineers have
concocted a totally false demonstration to hoodwink the jury and that the
judge will not allow me to expose them.
The exposure is simple. Take the equipment out of the courtroom and set it
up in Victoria Street, London and repeat the same test and try to get the
same result. They would fail.
It so happens that a scientist from the Martllesham Research laboratories
has the exact same Spectrum Analyser as was used in the court. He tried to
replicate the courtroom demonstration but failed until he cheated.
He is also very unhappy with the claims by the other engineers and wants to
give evidence. However, as you say, our chances are slim. If the man goes
down then he has to appeal but I doubt if we will be allowed to give
evidence again - not exactly my idea of justice.
Since putting my thoughts up on the web I have been bombarded with similar
stories and directed to webs sites where claims are made about judicial
corruption.
I think you are right that in my case it is not corruption but an over eager
judge trying to please an attractive young woman barrister.
I feel I have to just forget it. But at the same time I feel I am deserting
an innocent man in his time of need.
Lee Tracey>
Steve Walker
>
> The facts are that he was working for a man who is, without doubt, a
> serious criminal and one who took C & E for a few £million.
Ah, I see.......
> The guy accused worked for him in his firm as a £13,000 per year
> "techie" to look after the computers and some complicated electronioc
> banking hardware and software.
> What is significant is that the accused is a licenced radio ham and
> as such owns a lot of ham radio gear and scanning radio gear and a
> spectrum analyser.
Ooops - that's an unfortunate coincidence.
> What the accused claims is that this provided the C & E with a rod to
> beat him with as they could twist the facts and say that he was using
> the gear to keep tabs on the police and the C & E to warn his boss of
> law enforcement surveillance.
> What is significant to me is that if I was the criminal boss making
> £millions from a fraud I would not tell a £13,000 a year employee
It does sound rather unlikely, but I suppose they'd be after background
material rather than a star witness. If he's been in daily contact
with Mr Big, he'll be able to help them a great deal with who's been
visiting, where the electronic kit connects to, etc.
> The aspect that has infuriated me is that some of my fellow engineers
> have concocted a totally false demonstration to hoodwink the jury and
> that the judge will not allow me to expose them.
> It so happens that a scientist from the Martllesham Research
> laboratories has the exact same Spectrum Analyser as was used in the
> court. He tried to replicate the courtroom demonstration but failed
> until he cheated.
> He is also very unhappy with the claims by the other engineers and
> wants to give evidence. However, as you say, our chances are slim.
> If the man goes down then he has to appeal but I doubt if we will be
> allowed to give evidence again - not exactly my idea of justice.
Don't be downhearted Lee - most unjustly-convicted people would give
their right arm to have an advocate like you. If you want to help the
accused, you can muster the experts and scientists so that his lawyers
can put together a cast-iron case for the appeal.
I don't think you will be personally called, because the prosecution
could easily wind you up by pointing out your "incompetence" at the
earlier hearing (I know you're sure that you weren't incompetent, but
they'll throw it in your face all the same). But with your help, the
defendant's lawyers can secure the services of a new, unimpeacably
expert bod who'll carry the day.
You will have rendered invaluable service to the accused, and to the
cause of justice, if you can help them to achieve that. Good luck!