CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3
M. Cassar: Yes we took handwriting sample from Mr. Ellul Grech as I have already said and compared it with some of the envelopes that were already there.
(Michael Cassar is not a handwriting expert. He was determined to convict an innocent person. Time and again his witness confirms that there is collusion).
Defence: You had another case like this in the past?
M. Cassar: Yes.
Defence: You investigated another forgery case?
M. Cassar: Yes I had.
Defence: Did you always arraign?
M. Cassar: No I did not. If you wish to reply come and do so yourself. I have already replied. I never did such a thing in the past or present I am a serious person in my work.
(But not serious enough not to commit perjury. A professional like Michael Cassar knew that he did not have any evidence).
Defence: I have no doubt.
M. Cassar: Then allow me and listen to the other things I have to say.
Defence: But on this he told us that this was an opinion. We are talking on something that important substance and cardinal to this case. Then you to date do not have a forensic opinion that can satisfy the court. So you proceed on your opinion in this aspect. Now where did I get to…
M. Cassar: Not that aspect.
Defence: No regarding the handwriting aspect.
M. Cassar: Yes.
Defence: On what did you base this opinion?
M. Cassar: Yes I did this about four times. By having had handwriting sample and compared them with certain hand writings on the envelopes that were there. Now if this reply is no good I am sorry but I do not have another one.
(Handwriting experts spend many years studying their subject before their opinion is considered as conclusive evidence. This incompetent police officer considered that his opinion was good enough to press charges).
Defence: I accept, I accept. Your career in the police, first you were an inspector, now you are assistant commissioner etc., did you ever investigate a forgery case?
M. Cassar: Involving signature and similar yes.
Defence: Did you present the cases in court yourself?
M. Cassar: Not on handwriting opinion only. That is what I am trying to say.
Defence: Good.
M. Cassar: Because if that were the only thing I would have to wait for the expert results. I would be unjust if I rushed. (And he made sure to drag the case for as long as possible).
Defence: Now in the case you presented in court, did you also present it on your opinion on this aspect and at that moment your presentation included a forensic reports. You are under oath.
(So what? The witness has committed perjury several times already).
M. Cassar: You do not have to remind me. On the other hand I find that as an insult your honour.
Defence: No, I withdraw that.
M. Cassar: There were times where I had experts nominated during an investigation. There were occasions for sure and I am sure that I had no experts nominated by the court.
Defence: Would I be right in saying that when you arraigned Mr. Ellul Grech in court and during the time he was in custody there were people In Malta and Gozo that two or three days after were still receiving the letters that you arraigned Mr. Ellul Grech for?
M. Cassar: Yes. However, the dates were two or three days earlier. I mean the dates were two or three days before the 17th November.
(Confirmation that the letters were being delivered while the defendant was in custody).
D Defence: But we agree that those letters that were sent after the Monday when Ellul Grech was under arrest they could not have been sent by him?
M. Cassar: Sure it could be.
Defence: What do you mean he would have sent them from the Police Depot?
M. Cassar: No, no, the date of the day before. (Evidence was not submitted to confirm this) Allow me to say everything. We did not see all the dates. Vuol dire its what results…I have already said that there was another sack full that I did not see. The others I did see, checked the handwriting, checked if the stamp was recognisable or not and released them,I mean so that they were not handled. However, those that I saw were those when he was still free. It could be that up to yesterday or the day before there were people that were still handing them in but I do not know if the dates correspond to the date or more recent.
(Conflicting circumstantial and unreliable evidence. No record of the dates was ever presented to back his witness. Witness later confirms that two weeks later the letters were still being circulated after the defendant was arraigned in court on the 17 November 1999 he and his family were under 24hrs surveillance).
Defence: Yes but you said and agreed with make that up to two or three days after there was a number of people that were still receiving these letters. With the same date meaning the old date.
M. Cassar: Yes, yes in fact I am still receiving them.
Defence: But at least lets limit it to those that you received two days after, after the defendant was arraigned could it be that he sent these?
M. Cassar : Yes there is a possibility. Because he could have sent them in the morning. He was stopped on Monday because it was 2.30pm when we arrived at his house.
(Incorrect. This is where the witness’s memory is failing him. The police arrived at the defendant’s home at 2.00pm unexpectedly. They searched his home until 6.00pm. Despite thisthey did not find any stationery that matched that which was used. Neither did they find and conclusive evidence to connect the defendant to the anonymous letters).
Defence: But to us it results that these letters were still being received on the Friday of that week. Could it be that he was sending them?
M. Cassar: If there were any letters sent during the period he was under arrest, I can say that he could not have sent them because he was under arrest. I do not exclude this fact and I already said that there is more than one handwriting. If the handwriting was his or not we still have to see but there was more than one.
(Here Cassar is admitting that more than one person was involved. Despite this he did not investigate anyone else. That is how serious he was in his investigation).
Defence: Did he ever admit to you that he forged any documents?
M. Cassar: No he never admitted.
(Defendant always protested his innocence and challenged the police to investigate John Dalli and his involvement in the Daewoo SCANDAL).
Defence: Did he ever admit that he distributed any letter in Malta and Gozo?
M. Cassar: No he denied it.
Defence: Now, the honourable John Dalli there is a document with an English Address?
M. Cassar: In fact there are two. One is in Liverpool and the other in Bucks.
Defence: J. Dalli esquire, 17 Greenfield Road, Liverpool. Did you verify if this address is true?
M. Cassar: I, during my investigations verified with the defendant that the two addresses belonged to the defendant.
Defence: True residences?
M. Cassar: Yes.
Defence: Would I be correct in saying that document RC4 there are several documents. Would I be correct in saying that Mr. Ellul Grech told you that he used to look after John Dalli’s financial affairs in the 80’s?
M. Cassar: I think that is what he said at his home. During the interrogation he changed the version. He said that he used to receive them on behalf of John Dalli.
Defence: Now did you speak to John Dalli during your investigations?
M. Cassar: Sure.
M. Cassar: He told me that after 1987 the account was not operative.
CONTINUED ON
PAGE 5
 |
| M.Cassar - His False Witness P15 |
 |
| M. Cassar - His False Witness P16 |
 |
| M. Cassar - His False Witness P17 |
 |
| M. Cassar - His False Witness P18 |
No comments:
Post a Comment