PERJURY – IAG Investigators 2
The evidence showing that a FORCED ENTRY took place at the property on the day of the fire is overwhelming. Joseph had constantly produced statements suggesting the ‘Break In’ had been staged by myself.
None of these statements are supported by actual evidence.
A great deal of evidence, mainly his own photographs, had been disclosed, disproving many of the earlier claims he had made.
One of the most important pieces of evidence relates to the rocks found on the balcony outside the master bedroom, this is critical since they are clear evidence that somebody else was at the fire scene during the early stages of the fire.
The FIRE SCENE was attended continuously by the NZ Fire Service from around midnight on 9 September until late the next day, images taken by D S Sam Bindon show the balcony glass broken and the large rock in position were taken early on the 10 September, many hours before we returned to the scene.
The balcony glass was therefore definitely broken BEFORE the Fire Service arrived at the fire scene just after Midnight on the 9/10 September.
Joseph’s Fire Report, dated 4 Oct 2011, just records finding the rocks on the balcony without any other comments except noting that the majority of the glass was on the balcony itself.
In his Testimony to the Pre-trial given on 15 April 2013, Joseph made the following statements relating to the Rocks found on the bedroom balcony of the property which he later claimed were surrounded by the debris and glass.
Early in his April Testimony, (PT1 – P24 Lines 1-8) Joseph states :-
‘My first observation was that the glass balustrading was broken and that the majority of the glass was located on the balcony itself. The indication to me from that was that the glass, again, had been broken from an external attack as opposed to from the inside out. Once I gained access to the balcony I located, from memory, three large rocks on the balcony itself, and they had come to rest up against the windows or the doors that led from the balcony into the master bedroom’
The important point here is that Joseph agrees that the glass was broken by an external attack. This is consistent with the Fire Officer’s comments to me after the fire of ‘Vandals’ being the cause of the fire. It is very significant that Joseph made no comments here as to the rocks being surrounded by the debris, as opposed to being on top of it. He took no images showing the rocks were actually on the floor surface of the balcony or of the effects of water from hoses on this debris.
The evidence points to the intruders breaking the glass during the early stages of the fire itself. The photographs below show the rocks were on top of the glass which was ALL on top of the debris.
The above images show:-
1 A considerable volume of debris has been thrown out through the bedroom door and window over the floor of the balcony, probably as a result of the flashovers that alerted the distant neighbours to the fire. None of this debris is seen on top of any of the three rocks. This debris includes dry fibreglass insulation material, if this had been wet at any stage it would have flattened due to the water, it never recovers from exposure to water.
2 The lining of the balcony roof, which appears to be cement sheeting, has failed and fallen in large pieces on top of the debris emitted through the window. No piece of roof lining debris can be seen on top of any of the rocks or on top of any of the glass.
3 Shattered glass from all three balustrades has fallen inwards onto the balcony. The glass fragments are all seen on top of the debris and on top of the pieces of roof lining debris. None of the glass can be seen below any debris or roof pieces. Nor can any of the glass be seen on top of the rocks.
4 All 3 rocks are on top of pieces of glass, roof lining and the fire debris ejected through the window. The side views show this debris, is in places thicker than the height of the rocks themselves. None of the debris extends up the sides of the rocks as would be seen if the rock was sitting on the balcony floor, surrounded by debris.
5 The framework of the glass balustrades only shows evidence of slight heat damage, the walls where the balustrades join the main structure also show no indication of scorching, fire or heat damage. The glass panels, cooled on both sides by the cool night air clearly, could never have reached a high temperature. Heat shock, cold water hitting very hot glass, as a reason the glass braking, is not a tenable explanation for the glass breaking according to this photographic evidence.
6 The debris appears to be dry, undisturbed and clearly layered, there is no sign of any mixing of the glass, roof lining and debris layers nor any sign of debris being moved, dampened by water.
The images were sent to Australia’s top Fire Investigator, Tony Cafe for his comments. He returned a brief report He concludes that the rocks could not have been on the balcony prior to the start of the fire since the debris can be seen under the rocks, identifying one instance, where a piece of alloy debris can be seen clearly running underneath one of the rocks.
Maurice Fletcher questioned us about the rocks on the 15 September, asking about ‘strategically placed’ rocks on the bedroom balcony and other rocks found inside the property.
Obviously, the investigators were aware of the significance of the rocks. They show beyond any doubt that somebody was at the fire scene in the early stages of the fire breaking windows, throwing rocks and vandalising the property.
When he was later questioned on this subject at the Pre-trial he made some utterly amazing statements attempting to preserve the case against me.
In his Testimony to the Pre-trial given on 13 August 2013, Joseph made the following statements relating to the Rocks found on the bedroom balcony of the property which he then claims were surrounded by the debris and glass as opposed to being on top of both.