PERJURY – IAG Investigators 3

THE PRINTER

Of great interest in the testimony of Joseph relating to the theoretical REMOTE IGNITION DEVICE was the printer, which he claimed he had found in the debris in the library.

Ms Cull clarified the importance of this to the Crown’s theory of how the fire was started in Cross examination during the Pre-trial on 15 April 2013, (PT1, P49, Lines 20-26)

Q And if the proposition that it (the fire) has been ignited by a printer would you accept then that whatever printer was used, if one was used, it would need to have been in the library?

A Yes.

Q And following on from my question that printer would need to have been plugged into the wall somewhere?

A Correct.

 

In his earlier testimony Joseph had been asked where he found the printer. (PT1, P36, Lines 20 – 30) Mr Stevens asked:-

Q Whereabouts in the debris did you locate the remains of those printers?

A The second part of the printer I had recovered believing it to be part of the first printer was actually in a layer below that so it was almost at floor level and that was in debris that was slightly back more into the library and in terms of measurements we’re talking possibly about less than half a metre into the library.

His statement above the first printer was actually in a layer below that so it was almost at floor level’ does not relate to the printer remains that he recorded in his photographs.

IMG_4392

The location he described is correct, ‘about half a metre into the library‘ but his statement about the vertical depth he found the printer, ‘almost at floor level’ is clearly misleading as can be seen in these images.

IMG_4393

If the printer had been in the library before the fire, it would have been found with only a small amount of debris below it, the debris caused by the burning of the items that existed below it, before the fire started.

This is IMG_4394, the pile of debris on the right edge of this image is the location where Joseph claims he located the printer. It is easily seen here as a massive pile of debris.

Joseph therefore needed the printer to be found ‘almost at floor level’ to make the theoretical Ignition device credible but the evidence of these photographs shows it was actually found on top of a very large pile of debris, if indeed it was even found in the library debris at all.

This enlargement of the right part of IMG_4394 shown above allows the height of the pile of debris on which the printer was found to be better appreciated.

The cooking pot marked with a red dot here and seen on IMG_ 4392 near Maurice Fletcher’s feet, can safely be estimated at 15cm or more high, the debris pile in the area where the printer remains were found are clearly more than twice this high.

Several distinct pieces of debris can be identified on both the image taken from above and the image from the side, the pile of debris was unchanged between the two images. This is a massive amount of debris, far deeper than the debris layer seen in the earlier photographs of the library after the fire.

This appears to be the largest pile of debris on any photograph of the ‘original’ undisturbed fire scene. An extremely large volume of un-burnt material is needed to produce this amount of debris. Most people have experience of bonfires where a massive amount of material produces a very small layer of debris.

The printer, if it was actually found in this location, must have been above a very significant amount of un-burnt material before the fire started to end up on top of a pile of debris this large after the event.

The printer therefore, could not have been in the library prior to the fire, yet alone as claimed under oath by Joseph ‘actually in a layer below that so it was almost at floor level’

 

In my book 100% New Zealand I images that prove that Joseph himself created the pile of debris shown in the images above during his clearance of the library, there is no pile of debris in that location on any of the images until the 8 November 2011 when he was working in the library. Obviously his claims that he found the printer on top of that debris when he removed the beam on 12 December 2011 is seen to be false.

It gets worse however, since the remains of the printer can be seen buried in debris at the base of the office floor in the room next to the library on one of his images. Incredibly thee remains were photographed as seen above just 13 seconds after Joseph took the image of the printer remains 2m away in the debris of the next room. With investigator Maurice Fletcher who was assisting him that day they must have moved the remains the 2m, dropped them on top of the pile of debris, forgetting that Joseph himself had created the pile a month earlier.

Not only were the IAG paid investigators creating theories of ignition with no basis in fact they were moving items of evidence around in the fire scene to fit the theory and giving evidence under oath that they found the printer in a location that didn’t exist until the 8 November 2011 when it can be seen elsewhere on the images – this is a very serious crime far worse than perjury itself.

Joseph has again made claims to support the theory of remote ignition that are totally false as shown by his own photographs.

1 Comment

  • comment-avatar
    Bert April 22, 2018 (6:37 pm)

    Chris,

    First, I’m not Bert, my email is not bertie.bush but I do work for IAG at the head office and I need to keep that job until I retire.

    My wife and I are currently starting our holiday in Europe, I found your website after your email about Blackmail caused quite a stir last week at the office.

    I’ve spent a few hours going over your website, others have told me that this sort of thing happens regularly but I always was a sceptic, I’m no longer of that persuasion.
    I think you underestimate the importance of this page of your story – PERJURY – IAG Investigators 3, I think it is incredible when studied carefully.

    In no way am I a fire scientist, I’m an accountant, so nowhere near as hands-on but anybody with a brain can see that Mr Joseph has shot himself seriously in the bum here!

    I’m assuming that the metal structure on the pile of fire debris is actually a recognisable part of the missing printer, if it had been in that room before the fire started it would have been found very close to the floor slab in the debris, this is obvious since the only debris below the printer should have come from whatever was below the printer immediately prior to the fire, I guess that could only have been the floor coverings and desk or similar furniture that it was sitting on at that time. Mr Joseph sort of states this, ‘the lower level of the debris’ but as you point out the images show it on top of a large pile of debris.

    I can see only two ways it could have got into the position shown in Mr Joseph’s image (even if the pile of debris was caused by the fire which I think you adequately show that it was not) either it was above all the un-burnt material before the fire that burned to produce the debris which seems highly unlikely when you look at the other images of the fire scene with a debris field far lower than this pile of debris or it was placed there after the beam was removed.

    You correctly point out the metal object had not been pressed down by the heavy beam so the top surface of the printer part is level with the debris around it as one would expect to find it if it had been under the beam prior to it’s removal and this confirms it was put there after the beam was removed and before the image was taken – the only people there were presumably the two investigators Mr Joseph and Mr Fletcher!

    This is damning evidence of IAG employed investigators tampering with evidence in your fire scene to incriminate you!

    I am going to make sure that the management see this when I return from holiday and I hope it help to solve what others have called a gross miscarriage of justice but I would label as callous treatment by the management of IAG, an description that disturbs me greatly when I have worked for that company for many years.

    BB