6 comments

  1. Any NZ Police interview that is recorded is required to have the following times noted in the recording to prevent any possible editing. Start of interview, end of interview, time anybody entered or left the interview room, time when a new CD is inserted into the machine if the previous one is full.

    You should also never have been left alone in the interview room and you are correct, the full DVD should contain five files, four video files of exactly one gigabyte in size and a smaller file that contains the data required to make the four files run as a single video and other technical data. This pattern repeats on subsequent DVD’s until the recording ends, the final DVD having the small file one final file of less than one gigabyte and one to three one gigabyte files. This is exactly the same set of rules that apply to commercial DVD sets, films etc played on DVD players.

    The Police can edit these videos but only with the approval of the presiding judge and that of both Crown and defence lawyers.

    These omissions show that the video has, as you detail, been edited. You should make a complaint on that issue to the Police Complaints authority, I used their contact info to sign in to your comment system. They, I assure you, will take the matter very seriously.

  2. Mike says:

    Hi Chris

    I’m Mike, I posted on your blog years ago, I’m amazed you still seem to be struggling against the insurer, they were wildly out of order on last read.

    As I stated previously your home was designed for a perfect fire! We used to have loads of fires in homes with wood panelled walls and ceilings, codes changed that and things improved markedly. The massive ceiling voids in your living rooms would have filled with hot explosive smoke and caused massive flash overs ripping the home apart and creating an impossible task for the fire investigators. Your fire could have started anywhere in reality, the images of so much soft furnishing which, I know is untreated in New Zealand, WTF, would have fuelled the blaze at an hyper rate and once the timber walls and ceiling were ignited by the inevitable flash overs you monster home wouldn’t have survived for many minutes. Not your fault, I know you didn’t build it like that but boy it was set up by design to burn.

    I guess the insurance company investigators didn’t really look at anything, dumb bastards that had a single motive looking at your posts – to get you and get their bosses off the hook. It should have all been over in the first few hours of the investigation, if there is solid evidence of intrusion it is seldom worth looking further, any other evidence would always be undermined by the intrusion. You go with the balance of probability, the intruders caused the fire and once the possible connection between the policy holder and intruders shows zilch then the insurer must pay out or waste loads more bucks. In New Zealand, as you state, they have a lot of practice doing this and get away with it – your investigators wouldn’t last past their introduction in Chicago – biased and untrained – a formula for a fix up and that is what you got!

    Hope this helps

    Mike

    • cjrob224 says:

      Hi Mike

      I remember you previous post, thanks for updating it.

      We realise now that the house was basically lined with highly flammable material, all the areas which were lined with wood panelling were totally destroyed and this was the core of the property, add in all the NZ made sofas and it was a torch waiting for a match apparently. We knew none of this prior to the fire, you just assume everything had been done to the regulations and was safe, I suppose it passed all the building inspections.

      The previous owner put all the panelling and ceilings up, he was a woodworking fanatic and it did look beautiful. The sofa laws baffle me totally, the foam is treated with a chemical dangerous to the environment but the amounts are tiny compared to the poisons pumped into it by one large fire such as this and there are thousands of house fires in NZ every year! Madness!

      Thanks again, always great to get honest expert opinion.

      Chris

  3. Tim Oswald says:

    I’m a student at CIASOLUTIONS in Melbourne studying Computer Forensics principally using Forensics Toolkit FTK to access data.

    I look at this page in your blog and ask myself what the hell was going on here? The Significant File Activity list is totally rubbish, some ‘Affected Filename’ lines may be of interest but they do not support the ‘Type of Activity’ and the ‘Notes’ column that he states. You would need to produce masses of corroborating evidence to show those connections most of which are just one of tens of possible activities that could affect that file, some have no basis at all.

    Computer forensic analysts have to be extremely careful, particularly on legal and ethical principles or their evidence could be challenged and rendered inadmissible as eventually happened in this case but this right at the was the start of the case and I cannot see how this was allowed to go on. In my opinion if this Jorgensen claims he is qualified in computer forensics he is a charlatan of the first order.

    I am pleased you nailed him in the end but it seems that he got away without punishment for his vicious and vindictive lies, allowing him to sprout more garbage like this in his next case.

    Tim Oswald

    • cjrob224 says:

      Thanks Tim

      I agree totally, I have been in the Micro computer industry since Day ZERO and I have never come across an expert like this, just Technobabble endlessly and when challenged he changes his story to another version of Technobabble. I don’t think he knows anything at all. A classic example of what can happen when you give a super piece of software like FTK to a moron that just wants to find what his bosses want and doesn’t understand that you need not just the result but the proof that your claims are actually real.

      Good luck in your studies, it doesn’t appear difficult to get work in that area of expertise if Jorgensen is anything to go by.

      Chris R

  4. Did you have a proper lawyer representing you?

    If you did and you told them all this why didn’t they take action, they would have had an original copy of the video and the transcript, just the missing times on the video would have been enough for them to make an application for dismissal! Tampering with the evidence at this stage in the investigation would have been fatal to the prosecution case.

    The Evidence Act and Police Interview Code of Practice require several procedures to be followed during a suspect’s Police interview, most critically obvious in the transcript is the total absence of records of the times when the officer left the room, returned to the room and when the interview concluded. These omissions render the interview inadmissible and reinforce the claims made by the defendant. It was also unacceptable to leave the uncharged suspect in a locked interview room alone for a period of time, possibly 30 mins by his recollection.

    I have studied the transcript, it appears to be completely genuine, I am requesting copies of the video recordings. I am sure it will be the interview recorded in the transcript but there can be little doubt it was not a full and correct record of the interview itself which would, undoubtedly had the time stamps detailed above.

    It is difficult to see why the Police themselves would undertake these actions, the evidence was all collected by agents of the insurance company and maintaining a case against the suspect was vital to their interests by allowing them to avoid meeting the insurance claims. One must therefore question the reasons that the officers involved took such actions.

    I feel that the lawyer involved was incompetent, inexperienced or possibly a party to the deception, it is hard to see why they did not take action against the Police Officer who seems to have been continuously involved in your case. I seriously recommend that you report their actions to the Law Society and the actions of the Police Officers to the Police Complaints system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.