A Case Study in how the Santa Clara County District Attorney and Crime Lab Cover Up the Crimes of Police Officers while Simultaneously Incriminating Citizens with Falsified Evidence; Falsified Videos.
Deputy District Attorneys Involved:
Javier Alcala; Deborah Medved;
Crime Lab Analysts Involved:
Christopher Corpora; John Bourke; Mario Soto
Ian Fitch, Santa Clara County Crime Lab Director
1) Santa Clara Crime Lab verified audio/video footage has been removed from a Taser video.
CLICK HERE: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/eight.html
2) Comparing the exact corresponding footage from Taser Videos to the MAV video it becomes clear that Ciampi is at Two Different Places At Once verifying that the MAV video has been significantly tampered with.
CLICK HERE: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/four.html
3) The MAV videos were recorded to Tamper proof hard drives in which the District Attorney's office and crime lab could have obtained the original unadulterated videos. Eventually Chief Burns would destroy those hard drives in violation of his department’s policy.
Click Here: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/two.html
4) We shouldn’t be surprised, DDA Deborah Medved and others in the DA’s office, Philip Charlebois, suppressed evidence throughout Ciampi's criminal case in violation of the law and Constitution.
See Here: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-2.html
See Section I of Exhibit ONE: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-1.html
5) Mr. Corpora analyzed the Taser Videos and MAV videos to determine if they had been tampered with. Mr. Corpora completed his analysis on or about October 8, 2009.
Since Ofc. Temores’ MAV video did not have any audio, Mr. Corpora mated Temores’ MAV video to Burger’s MAV audio, that’s called editing and falsifying the evidence.
6) Mr. Corpora claims that no editing occurred yet he does not document in his report that the dialog of “your not making it easy” (Statement ‘A’) has been removed from Burger’s MAV recording and the dialog of, “or I’m going to taser you” has been removed from Burger’s Taser recording.
Audio Evidence Here: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/one.html
7) It is humanly impossible for the same person to make two separate statements at exactly the same time. Therefore the only explanation as to how the two statements made by Officer Burger at exactly the same time in the recordings is that the recordings have been tampered with. The above evidence proves that “time” and "footage" is missing from Burger’s MAV recording and since Burger’s MAV recording is in sync with Temores’ MAV recording the above evidence proves that Temores’ MAV video is missing "time" and "footage" as well.
8) Officer Temores testified that the battery to his microphone ran out of power which is why there is no audio on his MAV recording, yet Corpora documented that Temores’ MAV system picked up a low-volume audio recording. Can you explain how Temores’ MAV picked up audio when his microphone had no power to pick up any audio? To the average person there shouldn’t be anything heard on the recording because there was NO MICROPHONE to record any audio.
Battery Evidence Here: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/three.html
Though Temores and the PAPD have asserted that his microphone ran out of power, that was highly unlikely given that the battery was fully powered when Temores went on duty which would have lasted for ten continuous hours of use.
Since there is audio, how come Corpora did not, “pull it out” as it appears that he is capable of?
There is other evidence of audio editing in the recordings which can be found, that is if you want to find it.
9) Mr. Corpora concluded that there are no scenes recorded on the Taser videos that have not been recorded on Temores’ MAV video.
Here are THREE SCENES that have been recorded onto the taser videos yet were not recorded onto Temores’ MAV video verifying that video footage has been removed from Temores’ MAV video.
Missing Video: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/five.html
10) Mr. Corpora concluded that the MAV videos have not been tampered with. Mr. Corpora even contacted Kustom Signals, the manufacturer of the MAV systems to help with the analysis in which Corpora discusses analyzing the metadata.
Mr. Corpora is paid a lot of money to conduct professional, thorough and truthful analyses of evidence, how come he chose not to analyze the watermark that is created for the purpose of diagnosing whether a Kustom Signals’ MAV video has been tampered with or not?
See Watermark: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/six.html
11) Palo Alto Police Officer Kelly Burger Testified under Penalty of Perjury that he drew his taser gun TWO separate times from his holster and that his taser gun was in his holster while he pulled Ciampi from the vehicle and up against the fence. (Just so you know that’s not what happened, what truly happened has been removed from the video).
The Audio/Video footage from Burger’s own taser video contradicts his statement exposing him as committing perjury in an attempt to explain why there is missing video footage from his taser video.
Burger’s Perjury: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/seven.html
The question you need to ask is, why would Ofc. Burger commit perjury unnecessarily?
12) Mr. Corpora documents in his report that there are three breaks in time in both taser videos, yet I only see two breaks in time on the taser videos. Could you point out the third break in time in the taser videos?
Additionally Mr. Corpora verified that 4 seconds of audio/video footage is missing from Temores’ Taser video.
How can he conclude that no editing has occurred with this empirical evidence to the contrary which has been produced by the Santa Clara County Crime Lab Analyst Corpora?
Missing Taser Video: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/eight.html
13) Mr. Bourke, initially analyzed the taser cameras, taser gun and taser videos from the original taser hard drive. The falsified taser gun activation report given to the DA states that Temores discharged electricity from his taser gun one time for five seconds, yet Officer Temores testified under penalty of perjury that he discharged electricity two separate times.
Temores Perjury: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/nine.html
Why would Ofc. Temores commit perjury unnecessarily?
14) In Mr. Bourke's analysis he does not document downloading the taser gun activation data and comparing it to the taser videos. Bourke downloaded the taser videos directly from the taser cameras with the same cable that is capable of downloading the taser gun activation data and Bourke documented the duration of the videos but Bourke did not document the number to times and duration of taser gun discharges, why?
That would have been a very simple, inexpensive and verifiable means to prove or disprove that the taser videos had been tampered with.
Maybe Bourke did download the Taser gun activation data and he didn’t like what found.
Mr. Bourke could have figured out that the taser gun data ports had been tampered with by comparing the illuminated taser wire with the taser gun activation data.
Taser Gun Discharge: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/ten.html
15) Mr. Bourke did note that some of the taser video frames were improperly indexed, (not in chronological order), and tried to access the original download area on the original computer but was prevented from doing so. Instead of gaining access to that area of the computer he chose to cease his investigation.
Bourke Ceases Investigation: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/eleven.html
Why didn’t Mr. Bourke and Santa Clara District Attorney not want to find out what was on the original taser hard drive? Why didn’t they want to recover the original unadulterated taser videos?
In the process of Ciampi's civil suit Ciampi subsequently proved that both taser guns’ data ports have been tampered with and that Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns submitted falsified taser gun activation data to the courts.
Falsified Taser Activation Reports: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-6.html
16) Officer Burger is heard on his own MAV recording stating that he himself felt electricity from his own taser wires, yet Burger does not come into contact with his taser wires during the two second discharge documented on his activation report. But more, importantly, Andrew Hinz, Taser International’s Director of Technical Services verified that no electricity was discharged into Ofc. Burger’s taser wires after analyzing those taser wires.
Why would Ofc. Burger without being solicited for the information state that he felt electricity from his taser guns’ taser wires minutes after he fired his taser gun when according the Manufacturer no electricity traveled through the wires?
If no electricity was discharged through Officer Burger’s taser wires, why would officer Burger testify under penalty of perjury to the contrary especially when he had nothing to gain by doing so?
Taser Wire Contradiction: http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/twelve.html
17) The reason why Mr. Hinz documents that no electricity was discharged into Burger’s taser wires is because he did not analyze Burger’s taser wires, he was probably given Temores’ taser wires, the taser wires which Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns has asserted were destroyed in violation of Palo Alto Police Department Policy.
Why was Temores’ taser wires, taser probes and taser cartridge destroyed? They were destroyed because Temores fired two probes from his taser gun during the incident and the audio/video footage of that Taser gun firing has been removed from the videos.
See Here: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-5.html
The Palo Alto Police removed Temores’ taser probes, taser wires and taser cartridge from the crime scene and then took photos of the crime scene in order to falsely portray that crime scene with the intent of using that fabricated crime scene to incriminate me with a felony. This act by the PAPD is a violation of P.C. 141(b).
18) Now Mr. Hinz is the same person who has asserted under penalty of perjury that Taser Camera V07-065373 was first sent to the Palo Alto Police on November 26, 2008, yet the 2008 Taser Download Report documents TASER CAM V07-065373 being downloaded on January 9, 2008, ELEVEN months earlier. And Police Chief Dennis Burns stated that TASER CAM V07-065373 is the TASER CAM he took into possession from Officer Burger on August 29, 2008 and that Officer Burger used this camera on March 15, 2008.
See Evidence Here: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-7.html
and here: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/5/2/3852497/2008_download_report_taser_serial_numbers.pdf
So the question is, how did the Palo Alto Police download Taser camera V07-065373 on January 9, 2008 when they did not even possess it at that time?
19) As incredible as that sounds, Andrew Hinz initially documented that taser cameras V06-015020 and V06-015020 recorded the March 15, 2008 incident and that these two taser cameras were sent to Taser International for repair and subsequently destroyed.
See Evidence Here: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-7.html
20) Stutchman’s Forensic Report: Stutchman’s Analysis
21) John Bourke’s Report: Bourke Analysis
22) Christopher Corpora’s Report: Corpora Analysis
23) Mario Soto’s Report: Soto Analysis
24) Mr. Soto verified that the hash values were different indicating that the taser videos had been tampered with according to MIT:
These three scenes below from the taser videos are not recorded on Temores' MAV video verifying that these three scenes have been removed from Temores' MAV video.