Crime Report

Charges

Knowing CJR to be innocent of the charges, the original scene evidence included undeniable evidence of intruders causing the fire. The following charges relate to evidence created to avoid the evidence of the intruders and to incriminate CJR. These actions got him arrested for Arson and then allowed IAG to decline the insurance claims.

In Date Order: –

2.1          On 12 Dec 2011, RJ and MF Fabricated Evidence, they purported that they had located the remains of the printer at ‘near to ground level’ in the library. The images taken by RJ show that the remains of the printer were actually located on top of a large pile of debris that was only created by the excavations of RJ on 8 November 2011 in the library.

Finding the remains of the printer, the only physical evidence to support MJ’s ‘Remote Ignition theory’ was critical to the case against CJR but the evidence was entirely false. 


2.2           On 12/13 Dec 2011, RJ and MF Destroyed Evidence, using the digger they had used to remove heavy items from the fire scene, they went on to clear the main areas of the scene down to bare concrete destroying evidence of the fire and evidence of their fabrication of evidence detailed in charge 2.1.

This destruction of the evidence of their fabrication was a criminal offence, conspiring to defeat justice. CJR’s right to have access to the evidence was also destroyed by their actions. At that time, he had no knowledge that he was a suspect in the arson investigation.

2.3           On 3 May 2012, CJH conspired with IAG to defraud CJR and ACR by issuing a letter declining their insurance claims due to CJR’s arrest for arson based on the falsified evidence of RJ, MJ and MF.

2.4            On 15 April 2013, at a Pre trial hearing, RJ committed Perjury repeatedly stating that he found the back-door unlocked when photographs taken by the Fire Service, Police and RJ himself showed it in a locked condition. RJ’s own fire scene notes also recorded it as ‘locked with key not located.’

This misleading evidence was an attempt to discount the clear evidence of intruders at the scene.

2.5           On 15 April 2013, at a Pre trial hearing, RJ committed Perjury repeatedly stating he found indications of accelerants at the fire scene, pooling and trial marks knowing that this evidence needed to be supported by forensic tests which he claimed not to have undertaken. RJ’s images show the pooling marks were created by scraping back debris removing the top layer of rotten carpet. There is no indication of any fire damage to the underlay, edges of carpet or the exposed doormat.

This misleading evidence was an attempt to support RJ’s unfounded claims of the fire scene being staged by CJR.

2.6           On 15 April 2013, at a Pre trial hearing, MJ committed Perjury repeatedly stating that Remote Ignition had been used to cause the fire. He gave details of a recreation of his theoretical method claiming that the items used were available to CJR. No remains in the fire scene or evidence of acquisition of these items were found to support this recreation.
MJ also mislead the Court on many points in his testimony including references to the ‘Print Command’ that would have been recorded if one had been issued to make the printer work as required in his remote ignition theory.

With CJR almost 400Km away and RJ failing to find any form of ignition device in the debris, to connect CJR to the fire required some sort of remote link but there was no physical evidence to support its existence.

2.7           On 15 April 2013, at a Pre trial hearing, MJ committed Perjury by stating ‘I don’t make any claims whatsoever that this is the exact methodology that was used if in fact a system like this was used, that this is the way in which the fire started’ (referring to his Remote Ignition theory recreation)

Going on to state ‘I just want to clarify that because particularly the insurance organisation wanted me to categorically state that this is how it started and I obviously was not in a position to do so.’

Whilst in his Fire Investigation Report of 24 Jan’12 he had statedThe results of this experimental recreation were clearly very successful as evidenced in the images in this report and confirmed by the video footage taken at the test centre at the New Zealand Fire Services facilities at Upper Hutt on Wednesday 25th January 2012. This amply proved both the feasibility and high probability that this method using the same or almost identical components were the cause of the fire at 125A Ness Road Kerikeri on Friday 9th September 2011.’

Not only is this Perjury, it clearly implicates the ‘Insurance Organisation’ probably Chris Hlavac who appointed and instructed MJ on behalf of IAG.

2.8           On 13 August 2013, at a Pre trial hearing, RJ committed Perjury repeatedly stating the rocks on the Master Bedroom Balcony:-

Were ‘among’ the debris, not on top of it as clearly seen in his images.

‘Had been moved to the location by the action of the fire service hoses’ when his images show the debris was dry with no sign of water being used.

This misleading evidence was an attempt to counter the clear evidence of the rocks and glass being on top of the fire debris which showed that intruders were at the fire scene, smashing windows and balustrades, after the fire started. This evidence destroyed RJ’s unfounded evidence that CJR had staged the fire scene.

2.9           2012-2015 The investigators and IAG’s lawyers used every possible device to cause delay. This was a deliberate ploy to force CJR and ACR into bankruptcy, inevitable when they had no source of income, no payment from IAG and ASB, a closely connected company to IAG, pressing for settlement under the mortgage for the destroyed property.

For example, RJ claimed at the Pre trial on 15 April’13 that he had another appointment the next day and left early.
Judge McDonald wanted a quick resumption but RJ claimed he was not available for the next 5 months!

It took the investigators and lawyers almost 12 months to get clarification from LogMeIn Inc. regarding their records of the data passed in a remote connection when the full detail, i.e. ‘none was recorded’ is clearly detailed in the software manual and on the LogMeIn website.

IAG would later claim that the bankruptcy of CJR and ACR extinguished their claims under the insurance policies.

2.10           On 15-18 Feb 2015, MJ Committed Perjury and Fabricated Evidence,

a)           Initially claiming that he couldn’t find evidence of a Print command, he had to agree with the defence that the last print command as recorded by the Print Spooler was at 22:55 on 8 September 2011, over 24 hours prior to the fire being first seen.

b)           He then claimed that it was possible that the printer attributes had been changed to ‘Direct Print’ bypassing the print spooler, after 22:55 on 8 September 2011 and before the fire started.

c)           He was given time to prove he was correct the next day. At that hearing he produced a document that he stated was a print out of the printer attributes page that showed the printer was set to ‘Direct print’ on the night of the fire.

d)           This document was a partial printout produced by analysis software showing a section of one of the printer attributes pages from the PC registry, it is shown in Appendix D.

e)           When the full PC registry page was produced it showed that the last time any entry in the printer attributes pages had been updated was 30 April 2011, several months prior to the fire. This document is also shown in Appendix D.

f)           If the printer attributes had not changed since 30 April and the Printer had been controlled by the print spooler on the 8 September 2011 then the print spooler was in charge of the printer on the night of the fire showing MJ’s document was falsified evidence and his statement that the printer was set to Direct Print was misleading. No print command had been received after 22:55 on 8 September 2011.

MJ’s Perjury and fabricated evidence led to the discovery of the print spooler record of the last ‘Print Command’ on 8 September 2011 and the printer attributes registry page that showed the printer settings had not changed since 30 April 2011. These facts proved that the printer did not receive a print command on the day of the fire and destroyed the ‘Remote Ignition theory’. As noted by Judge McDonald, the remote ignition theories all relied on the printer receiving a Print Command.

2.11           3 May’15 CJH states IAG’s position in a letter to CJR and ACR
‘As you will appreciate, the outcome of the criminal charge does not resolve your insurance claims which are governed by the civil, not the criminal jurisdiction of the Court.’

Exactly the same alibi for CJR would apply in the Civil Court as it did in the Criminal Court but IAG knew CJR and ACR could never afford to enter into a Civil Court case against them in NZ.

2.12           26 May’17, IAG’s lawyers, DLA Piper reply to a complaint by CJR and ACR about the result of a Court hearing.

‘IAG has considered the factual allegations contained in your complaints. IAG maintains its position as set out in its declinature letters of 3 May 2012 and 22 June 2012, being that your claim is fraudulent because Mr Robinson deliberately set and ignited the fire that occurred at 125A Ness Rd in September 2011 (the fire).’

Both declinature letters base their action declining the claims on CJR using Remote Ignition which had been proven never to have occurred and was a theory based on the falsified evidence of RJ, MJ and MF.

2.13            26 May’17, IAG’s lawyers, DLA Piper reply to a complaint by CJR and ACR about the result of a Court hearing, in the same document as in 2.12

          ‘The Honourable Justice Moore cited a number of grounds in his judgment dismissing your application. . .He went on to say that there was:-‘…a strong evidential foundation from which it may properly be inferred Mr Robinson was the author of this sophisticated plan to cause the fire by remote ignition, and he carried out this strategy thus causing the fire which incinerated his property.

Justice Moore was supplied copious written evidence by IAG that clearly continued to state CJR caused the fire by Remote Ignition. They did not include the evidence that led to the discharge of CJR for the Arson charges nor that he had a solid alibi since he had no opportunity to cause the fire.
Had there been a ‘strong evidential foundation’ CJR would have been convicted but in fact no real evidence existed at all.

IAG continue to use the false evidence of their investigators to decline perfectly valid claims – a well-rehearsed and comprehensive conspiracy to bring false accusations which has continued for several years with the aim of defrauding CJR and ACR.

Sections:-
THE CRIMES AND THE PARTIES
Background to the case
Charges
Brief Timeline of events
Summary
APPENDIX A   – Relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1961
APPENDIX B   – Links to the ACTUAL documents referred to above.
APPENDIX C   – Important images referred to above.
APPENDIX D   – The PC Registry Documents.
START OF CRIME REPORT
HOME PAGE