EXHIBIT 8 (A)
There is no justifiable reason why Burger's Taser Camera has at least two missing gaps in video footage.
The dialog of "TURN AROUND" AND "THE POLICE" are two fixed moments in time that were recorded on Temores' and Burger's Taser videos. The elapsed time between these statements, these fixed moments in time, should should be the same in both recordings.
Temores' Taser Video is at the 47th second when Burger's Taser Video is at the 46th second when "Turn Around" is recorded.
Temores' Taser Video is at the 14th second when Burger's Taser Video is at the 17th second when "The Police" is recorded.
According to Santa Clara County Crime Lab analyst Christopher Corpora:
27 seconds elapse between the two statements on Temores' Taser Video and
31 seconds elapse between the two statements on Burger's Taser Video.
This contradiction cannot physically exist and must be the result from editing the taser videos.
Temores' Taser Video is at the 14th second when Burger's Taser Video is at the 17th second when "The Police" is recorded.
According to Santa Clara County Crime Lab analyst Christopher Corpora:
27 seconds elapse between the two statements on Temores' Taser Video and
31 seconds elapse between the two statements on Burger's Taser Video.
This contradiction cannot physically exist and must be the result from editing the taser videos.
Using a STOP WATCH the discrepancy in time increases from 4 seconds to 5 seconds.
Christopher Corpora's Complete Analysis:
copora.pdf | |
File Size: | 348 kb |
File Type: |
EXHIBIT 8 (B)
It should be noted that not one analyst documents the taser gun activation data or downloading the taser guns' DATA PORTS DIRECTLY as a part of their analysis. Reason, the unadulterated taser gun activation data would have completely and irrefutably contradicted the videos as well as the falsified taser gun activation data reports previously submitted.
John Burke Downloaded the taser cameras with the exporting software that would have also downloaded the taser gun activation data.
I have to believe that John Burke most likely downloaded the taser gun activation data and did not like what he saw and therefore did not use it as a part of his analysis.
John Burke Downloaded the taser cameras with the exporting software that would have also downloaded the taser gun activation data.
I have to believe that John Burke most likely downloaded the taser gun activation data and did not like what he saw and therefore did not use it as a part of his analysis.
Santa Clara County District Attorneys Dolores Carr and Jeff Rosen have refused to comment about why Burke failed to document the activation data or provide the data that he downloaded. I wonder what Burke's explanation will be if i is ever required to testify.
John Burke's Complete Analysis:
burke_report.pdf | |
File Size: | 98 kb |
File Type: |
EXHIBIT 8 (C)
"Hash Values" or "Hash Functions" are used to determine whether or not electronic files have been edited or tampered with.
Soto attempts to explain away the discrepancy.
If Soto's and Rosen's assertion that different hash values would not be indicative of tampering/editing then there would have been no reason to conduct the test.
The people in the business of evaluating Hash Values seem to disagree with Soto and DA Jeff Rosen indicating that Soto's and Rosen's conclusions are fraudulent.
The people in the business of evaluating Hash Values seem to disagree with Soto and DA Jeff Rosen indicating that Soto's and Rosen's conclusions are fraudulent.
Mario Soto's Complete Analysis:
soto_analysis.pdf | |
File Size: | 108 kb |
File Type: |
mit_hash_value_article.pdf | |
File Size: | 1310 kb |
File Type: |
TIME LINE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE:
time_line.pdf | |
File Size: | 212 kb |
File Type: |
EXHIBIT 8 (D)
Chief Burns oversaw the destruction of the the MAV videos on the tamper proof hard drives in violation of Palo Alto City Policies 446 and 610; state law and the Constitution.
Instead of securing the tamper proof hard drives that recorded the March 15, 2008 incident into evidence pursuant to the MAV and Property Policies Chief Burns purged the hard drives of the March 15, 2008 videos and placed the hard drives back into circulation to overwrite the original videos. Burns refused to provide the ID numbers of the Hard Drives.
EXHIBIT 8 (E)
Chief Burns through his attorney claimed that MAV videos containing the watermark are not playable on a computer or DVD player. After Judge Grewal ordered Burns to provide the MAV video with the watermark I was able to view the video by playing the DVD on a computer contradicting Burns' assertion to the contrary.
EXHIBIT 8 (F)
Chief Burns claims to not know why the dates of modification and the amounts of memory on the MAV videos would continually change.
EXHIBIT 8 (G)
On April 21, 2011 Judge Paul S. Grewal ORDERED Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns to provide the MAV videos with Watermark by April, 29, 2011. First he delayed his response and then claimed that Brian Furtado was the only person capable of making a MAV video. However Brian Furtado sent out an email revealing that Dacia Tavaras can make MAV videos on URGENT notice contradicting Burns' false assertion to Judge Grewal.
Why did Chief Burns not want any other person than Brian Furtado to make a copy of the March 15, 2008 MAV videos? Perhaps its because Chief Burns was not providing authentic Kustom Signal's MAV videos but edited copies and that would have become apparent to the other MAV Custodians.
Exhibit 8 (H)
EXHIBIT 8 (I)
Even after asking former DA Dolores Carr and current DA Jeff Rosen to analyze the watermark, they refused. Why did they refuse, because they did not want to reveal the truth. Why did they refuse, because they wanted to conceal the crimes of the Palo Alto Police. Carr and Rosen refuse to address the evidence below and elswhere on this website, because they cannot refute it.
Further Analysis of Audio Editing:
audio_editing.pdf | |
File Size: | 95 kb |
File Type: |
Burger's MAV Transcript:
burgers_mav_transcript_2.pdf | |
File Size: | 35 kb |
File Type: |
Officer Temores' MAV recording does not have any audio. See Exhibit 9B.
Temores claims that his microphone was out of power and did not record ANYTHING.
Yet the Santa Clara County Crime Lab documents that Temores' MAV system did record audio, but that the volume so low it is impossible to make out what was recorded. IF TEMORES' MICROPHONE WAS NOT ON, THEN HIS RECORDING SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY AUDIO. Why can't we hear the audio?
Click download for full analysis
missing_mav_footage.pdf | |
File Size: | 2128 kb |
File Type: |
There are numerous other pieces of evidence that prove that the videos have been edited, altered and have had content removed, however the evidence above is all that is necessary to empirically prove that Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns and his subordinate officers violated the law. Penal Codes 132 and 134.
EXHIBIT 8 (J)
If that is not enough, Officers April Wagner and Manuel Temores stated in the Police Report and in Court testimony that Ciampi fell to the ground two separate times and that Ciampi got up off the ground in between going down the first time and going down the second time. Temores' MAV video had an unobstructed view of the incident, and Temores' MAV video only records Ciampi going down to the ground one time and never getting up off the ground. BASED UPON THESE TWO STATEMENTS UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, TWO OFFICERS WHO WERE AT THE SCENE VERIFY THAT THE VIDEO FOOTAGE OF CIAMPI GETTING UP OFF THE GROUND IS MISSING FROM TEMORES' MAV VIDEO, HENCE THIS VIDEO FOOTAGE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM TEMORES' MAV VIDEO.
Officer Temores' Court testimony: