Why isn't this officer charged with perjury?

FiReSTaRT said:
Lol if you have to ask, you really gotta read more of Berni's posts :cool:
Click to expand...


^^^this. Oh, and Berni. Now it makes sense. I thought he just misspelled "Inbred". (yeah, I know that joke's been done before, but I used quotes!)
 
If the officer is to blame I hope he's found out. BUT........this article is written heavily on the side of the "victim". This story is only her side and much is left out. For instance, she was chearged with 1. Assault and 2. Obstruct but the acticle states only the obstruct was dismissed (very common to speed up court for a lesser charge to be dropped in court if another charge is pled guilty to and I'll bet that's what happended here).
 
Hardwrkr13 said:
very common to speed up court for a lesser charge to be dropped in court if another charge is pled guilty to and I'll bet that's what happended here.
Click to expand...

More like very common for cops to lay 1 or more "bonus" charges so that at least one sticks.
 
Now that she has had her day in court I hope she goes after him.
There is absolutely no excuse for a Police Officer to treat a member of the public with such cruelty.
He was a bully and should be kicked out of the force and serve time.
She was the victim and he was the perpetrator.
 
cycling said:
Now that she has had her day in court I hope she goes after him.
There is absolutely no excuse for a Police Officer to treat a member of the public with such cruelty.
He was a bully and should be kicked out of the force and serve time.
She was the victim and he was the perpetrator.
Click to expand...

Should be punitive damages against him like forfeit of his police pension.
 
There was a case last yr in Chicago.
A hooker got busted, and was offered a deal if she rolled on her pimp or dealer and agreed to testify-sumthin like that.
She secretly recorded the police captain making her the deal, with her blackberry.
Come the day of trial, she is called to witness stand. When she tells her deal, her own lawyer is also asking her questions. He asks her why she co-operated and she explains that she was offered a deal by the cops, contrary to the cop's testimony given earlier. The prosecution and hops up and says "No we didn't".
She opens her purse, gets her blackberry out and plays the recording.
She is then charged with "recording a police officer" and goes to jail, while the cop gets nothing, even though he was just proven, right in front of the entire courtroom, to have perjurred himself.
The blue line protects itself above all else.
 
omnivore said:
There was a case last yr in Chicago.
A hooker got busted, and was offered a deal if she rolled on her pimp or dealer and agreed to testify-sumthin like that.
She secretly recorded the police captain making her the deal, with her blackberry.
Come the day of trial, she is called to witness stand. When she tells her deal, her own lawyer is also asking her questions. He asks her why she co-operated and she explains that she was offered a deal by the cops, contrary to the cop's testimony given earlier. The prosecution and hops up and says "No we didn't".
She opens her purse, gets her blackberry out and plays the recording.
She is then charged with "recording a police officer" and goes to jail, while the cop gets nothing, even though he was just proven, right in front of the entire courtroom, to have perjurred himself.
The blue line protects itself above all else.
Click to expand...

The men that are supposed to, "Serve and Protect" us. Should be changed to, "Serve and Protect themselves"
Who are we? We simply do not stand a chance for true justice.
As in many cases by being a biker puts us as guilty before charged. HTA 172 is an example.

Really disgusts me.
 
This is a crazy situation. I did a search on the name of the officer and I am reading other articles (same case).

Let's see this quote from the judge's ruling:

“Sgt. (Russell) Watson provided no explanation as to how Ms. Farrell’s tibia was broken, or indeed, the reasons for the bruises on her legs and arms and the loss of a tooth,” wrote (Ontario Court Justice George) Beatty. “His notes did not record the ‘hammer strike’ to her left eye, which was basically a sucker punch. Only P.C. Catterall saw the blow. Sgt. Watson testified that she grabbed his right lapel, although his notes indicated his left lapel. His recollection of events is suspect.”

(Ontario Court Justice George) Beatty did not find (Ms.) Farrell tried to grab (Sgt.) Watson’s lapel, and he said the allegation that she tried to kick his legs was “not supported by the evidence.”

He wrote that “Ms. Farrell testified that she fell on her face after being kicked and tried to protect herself by putting her fists under herself. The fall would explain the crushing injury to her knee and banging her head.”

(Ontario Court Justice George) Beatty concluded that “Ms. Farrell showed no intent to obstruct Sgt. Watson in his investigation. Her excitement and zeal may have been distracting for Sgt. Watson, who was trying to deal with a hysterical and uncooperative Pauline Sherwood, but she intended to assist the investigation.

Source: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/12/29/good_deed_punished_at_the_hands_of_a_cop.html
 
This is also important:

"(Lawyer Angela) McLeod said that if the SIU refuses (to re-open the investigation), she wants the watchdog to “provide the public with an answer as to why.”

Exactly. The SIU is used to sweep all kind of things under the carpet. This practice has to end, and they have to publically explain their decisions in contentious, controversial cases such as this one.
 
From The Sun article...

"Our records show he (Sgt. Russell Watson) came in for an interview but he would NOT provide his notes,” SIU spokesman Jasbir Brar said. “That is within his legal rights."


OK then... :rolleyes:
 
It feels like lessons in swimming uphill. Truly eye opening ..... and I was born in a country where 15 years ago nasty things could happen if you were on the wrong list. But everyone knew it and sort of expected it.

Here, I would not expect that sort of injustice. Not a chance ... that's why it's an eye opener to me. You learn every day ....
 
omnivore said:
There was a case last yr in Chicago.
A hooker got busted, and was offered a deal if she rolled on her pimp or dealer and agreed to testify-sumthin like that.
She secretly recorded the police captain making her the deal, with her blackberry.
Come the day of trial, she is called to witness stand. When she tells her deal, her own lawyer is also asking her questions. He asks her why she co-operated and she explains that she was offered a deal by the cops, contrary to the cop's testimony given earlier. The prosecution and hops up and says "No we didn't".
She opens her purse, gets her blackberry out and plays the recording.
She is then charged with "recording a police officer" and goes to jail, while the cop gets nothing, even though he was just proven, right in front of the entire courtroom, to have perjurred himself.
The blue line protects itself above all else.
Click to expand...

I think it might work in TV land, but in reality, the recording (illegal) needed to be submitted to evidence first, before it could be played in court. Otherwise, it doesn't allow the other side to properly analyze and counter. Not saying she was wrong in doing so, but definitely not following the "due process" part.
 
I thought in the US, as long as one person involved in the conversation knows they are being recorded, it's legal? Or it it that recording a cop is illegal....using terrorism and all that blanket excuse?
 
Riceburner said:
I thought in the US, as long as one person involved in the conversation knows they are being recorded, it's legal? Or it it that recording a cop is illegal....using terrorism and all that blanket excuse?
Click to expand...

This is true for Canada, but in the US it depends on the state. Some allow it, some require you to notify the other party.
 
Dresden said:
I think it might work in TV land, but in reality, the recording (illegal) needed to be submitted to evidence first, before it could be played in court. Otherwise, it doesn't allow the other side to properly analyze and counter. Not saying she was wrong in doing so, but definitely not following the "due process" part.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't whether the evidence was admissable or not. It should have opened up an entirely new case where the cop was charged for perjury.......cops aren't allowed to lie on the stand whenever they want- which case he was lying about wasn't the issue at all. And then the hooker ends up in jail for simply recording him, and he walks?
They could have confiscated her recording for the case filed against the perjuring officer...then it could have been analyzed etc etc. It wasn't being used as evidence against the pimp/dealer, she simply used it to show she was offered a deal that the police said they never offered. At that point, he should have been arrested, charges should have been filed against the officer, and then the proceedings against the pimp could continue.

In Illinois, a law has been enacted that disallows recording of any peace officer, regardless of the reason-video or audio, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom