Interference in my presentation
of the case and cross examining
I was prevented by the judge , due to her interfering , from asking the policeman important questions about the lack of investigative fairness during his investigation .
My questioning of that witness was interrupted twice by the judge asking the jury out and then dressing me down ( 2-51-13 ; 2-68-5 ) .( The jury was called out on the second day of trial by the judge 5 times - under any pretext , just to cause confusion to me and the jury as well )
My questioning was interrupted by the judge in front of jury as well .
During discussion with the judge without a jury I had to explain to her what questions I want
to ask and what is their purpose .
2-51-44 - Since his job is an investigative officer I would tend to think that the purpose
of investigation is to establish what happened , establish the true facts .
2-56-47 -' My intention was to ask him a question about investigation as such , about analysis of facts , comparing statements and information in his hands '
2-57-28 - ' when I was arrested all they ( police ) had was the story told by the accuser .
I understand their attitude towards me . However , when they found out , even from hospital notes or my affidavit , I believe that their attitude should change ' .
2-58-20 - ( my reply to judge ) - ' I believe that you brought up an important point and that is that the prosecution is not so much interested in finding the truth , they are more interested in successful prosecution '
I tried to question the policeman Dodds about why he did not ask the accuser during
the ' investigation ' about the obvious discrepancy , his claim of being hit on the head and the lack of any signs of it during medical examinations ; and I tried also to ask questions relating to my affidavit .
There seem to be attitude by police of accepting whatever the accuser said without
any critical analysis of the facts available and the policeman selected evidence known
to him as false but which purported to show my guilt .
I tried to establish if it was negligence , incompetence or deliberate action .
My question to the policeman :
2-51-12 - ' you mentioned that you tried to confirm facts presented to you by the accuser . Have you confirmed the most critical fact and that is how it is - how it all started '.
Immediately the jury was sent out and again I was bullied by the judge .
Later I asked policeman another question :
2-62-35 - ( me to policeman ) -' Can you tell us why did you come to the conclusion that my action was not result of self defence '.
- ( judge ) - ' That`s not a proper question for this witness '.
I had discussion with the judge about those issues - pages 2-50 to 2-58 and then
2-62 to 2-63 .
I kept on trying to reason with the judge .
2-55-39 - … ' a matter before this court is not so much if that person got hurt . I believe that the matter before this court is - was hurting that person justified ? '
2-55-56 - ' I wanted to put to him that the accuser had reasons and motive to present himself as a victim . '
2-63-46 - '… questions have to be answered in order to establish the truth - in order to establish what really happened ' .
Again I tried to ask policeman questions and again the judge was interrupting my questioning :
2-63-50 - ' well , you do that with the appropriate witness '
That was the appropriate witness to answer questions about his investigation .
I had no chance to show that ' police ' and ' investigation ' is a contradiction of terms .
After the silence which is not shown in the transcript , it was obvious that the judge will not let me question the witness effectively and she would not let the truth to be shown .
It was the end of important cross examining .
There was no justifiable need to interrupt my questions to the policeman . I was not
rude or aggressive , I was not trying to disclose state secrets . She was engaged in
deliberate action to prevent the motives behind policeman lack of proper investigation
to be disclosed - she was protecting a dogma of police investigation infallibility .
Particularly during that cross examination the judge showed emotionally abusive
attitude towards me trying to cause me distress . It made me so upset that
I could not read to the policeman the questions I prepared earlier .
All I saw was a blurry page and the more I was thinking about the questions the more distressed I became .
She was yelling at me , I was treated like a naughty schoolboy who needs disciplining and not as a party before her .She was using discriminatory tactics against me to favour the prosecution and it was not a fair or just process , that was way beyond human ( judges ) errors or mistakes .
- Bullying is not accepted in schools , offices and factories - why should it be allowed
in courts ?
Judge`s bullying and intimidation prevented truth being shown in Court .