PERJURY 2 – Russell Joseph
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?
Q And following on from my question that printer would need to have been plugged into the wall somewhere?
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.
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.
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’
It is useful to view the images of how the printer remains were located. On 12/13 December 2011 Russell Joseph returned to the scene with Maurice Fletcher and heavy lifting equipment.
They claimed to have quickly found the printer remains on top of a pile of debris in the library. This too, is easily seen as false evidence on several grounds.
They stated that they lifted the steel beam away and exposed the printer remains but the images do not show the remains having been pressed into the debris as it would have been the case if they were there prior to the enormously heavy beam being removed by a crane.
The remains are clear of the debris, as if they had just been placed there rather than pressed down into the debris by the weight of the massive steel beam. They are also a long way above the floor level where they would have been if the printer had been in the fire prior to the fire!
Most critically, this pile of debris, that extended right up to the height of the beam at the western end of the library on his later images was not present on any images taken by the Fire Service, seen above where there is clear space under the curved beam, or on those taken by Joseph himself until after he had cleared the debris from part of the library on 8 November 2011, two months after the fire. It is easy to see when the debris was pilied here as he cleared the centre of the library on 8 November.
The debris here is now higher than the beam, the whole area below filled with the debris. When the crane lifted the beam away, it was pouring with rain. You can see the dry depression in the debris where it had been lying and right in that depression, standing proud of the debris are the printer remains!
The pile of debris was created by Joseph on 8 November, two months after the fire so how did the remains of the printer arrive on top of it during the fire?
Other images taken seconds before the images of the printer remains on the pile of debris, seen above, show an object that appears to be the printer remains some 2 metres away in the next room, it is in the debris from the office floor that had been directly above that spot.
Russell Joseph denied creating the pile of debris, denied placing the printer remains on top of the pile of debris, moving them to the top of the pile of debris he had created, no explanation of these events was ever offered. Not only was this perjury but it is perverting the course of justice and moving critical evidence around in the fire scene to match the theory of ignition. All false evidence and easily seen to be so.
If there was a real case against me why did Russell Joseph have to create all this false evidence and much more.
Can I be guilty of Arson as IAG claim, justifying not paying our insurance claims even now, when Russell Joseph falsified almost all the evidence?
He clearly did this to give his employer, IAG the opportunity to avoid meeting our valid claims to this day?
In the next chapter I move on to Martin Jorgensen, whilst Joseph was so stupid that he didn’t even think about the previous images and note he had taken when falsifying the evidence Jorgensen is a far more dangerous criminal. He disguises open lies in ‘Technobabble, designed specifically to mislead the Judges and lawyers that read his perjurious evidence documents.