P4 - Inspector Raymond Cremona - His Biased Witness



Continued from page 3
Defence:   Can you read the date on document RC18?

R. Cremona:   18 November.

Defence:   So we agree you arraigned Mr. Ellul Grech on the 17 November before you received this document from HSBC?

R. Cremona:   Yes. However before we arraigned him not just me but during the Investigation that assistant commissioner was conducting it was as clear as crystal that the amounts had been forged.

(It is obvious that the police never had any evidence that connected the defendant to the anonymous letters. Neither did they have any evidence that the defendant had forged any documents. The defendant always protested his innocence and demanded that it was John Dalli who should be investigated).

Defence:   Good. Meaning that it resulted that this document was forged, on the 18 November you received this document? That was the day after you arraigned Mr. Ellul Grech that you received that letter. Meaning that the proof the document being false was not received until after you arraigned Mr. Ellul Grech?

R. Cremona:   Yes we also asked Mr. John Dalli.

(It is illegal and a breach of human and civil rights to arraign anyone in court without having any evidence. However, the police were compelled to do so because they colluded with John Dalli. In Malta when a person is in custody he has no right to have legal representation, another breach of human and civil rights. Not having legal representation during questioning, the absence of police records and the lack of audio recording during questioning gives the police the opportunity to abuse their position and fabricate statements and evidence as they did in this case).

Defence:   Meaning you do not know what is false in this document?

R. Cremona:   I have already told you what is falsified.

Defence:   So this document RC17 is all false?

R. Cremona:   It has that part of the address if one looks at the document this has the top part of it taken from another document which is Y and it was photocopied or scanned from another document that could have been the original and document RC5 that has the same address at Highbridge Walk, Iceberry, Bucks. If we look at the top part meaning this part your honour, it is precisely the same as the other. There is a difference in the address because one has Highbridge Walk, Iceberry, Bucks while the other has 272 Main Street, Balzan, Malta.

Magistrate: The witness is comparing RC17 with RC5.

R. Cremona:   Good? It has this top part where the account number is, reference number, currency and notice account that are the same but there is a difference in the numbers.

Magistrate:   The contents of the bank statement.

Defence:   Look in the HSBC letter you received from Onor. John Dalli there is the following. “The account numbering system as shown on the forgery was last utilised in August of 1987. A Reasonable rate of interest applicable to one day notice account is September 1994 would have been 2%. The rate of interest quoted would not have been available under any type of US Dollar account during the period in question”. Meaning here they are explaining that the forgery is in the account numbering system. So let me see. “Further to your communication with my colleague I would like to confirm that the statement to which you refer is a publication. Now, the account numbering system as shown on the forgery was last utilised in 1987”. Meaning the account numbers. Do we agree?

(“Further to your communication with my colleague...” This begs the question when was this in the timescale of things? The fax from Jersey was received on the 18th November but the police had not asked Dalli to get proof until the l6th November, two days before the fax was received).

R. Cremona:   Good.

Defence:   “A reasonable rate of interest applicable to 1 day notice account in September 1994 would have been 2%.”

Magistrate:   The defence solicitor is reading from document RC18.

Defence:   Meaning when in the document there is written one-day notice. Do we agree?

R. Cremona:   Good.

Defence:   And “the rate of interest quoted would not have been available under any type of US Dollar account during the period in question”. Meaning the interest rate. Meaning these three are three things according to HSBC. Meaning that the rest of that document is however legal to an original. No?

R. Cremona:    No you are asking me a question and I am answering no. My reply is no.

Defence: Allow me you honour. He is specifying the document he did not say that it is a fabrication however, thereafter they said where the fabrication is. And now I am being asked not to ask any questions. So when you proceed with these investigations document RC17...  

R. Cremona:   Excuse me you are mistaken. I was part of the investigation and Assistant Commissioner Michael Cassar headed the investigation. (This was a frame up not an investigation).

Defence:   But you cannot tell me for example that the words J. Dalli esquire 272 Main Street is fabricated?

R. Cremona:   When compared with...

Defence:   No I asked you a question.


R. Cremona:   No I cannot tell.

Defence:   Naturally you cannot tall me that the name j. Dalli Esquire 272 Main Street, Balzan is false? 

R. Cremona:   I cannot tell. However, that document and another document RC5 are exactly the same, meaning that it is either this or the other document is a forgery.

Defence:   So you really do not know which is false? 

R. Cremona:   Sure. 

Defence:   You do not know. But this letter from HSBC meaning RC18 there is written? It either results or it does not result?

R. Cremona:   It does not result.

Defence:   It does not result that the words J. Dalli esquire of 272 Main Street, Balzan, Malta including the words Midland bank Trust, Corporation Jersey Ltd., PO Box 28-34, Hill Street, St. Helier, Jersey, Channel Island, the telephone numbers etc., these you cannot tell us if they are false and you also cannot tell us if the number, dates meaning 61-6-94 description b/f and the amount that is the balance of LM33,022. So let me ask him a general question regarding document RC18...

Magistrate:   From those details does it result to you that they are falsified?

R. Cremona:   From those details it results to us that they are falsified. 

Magistrate:   From the HSBC letter. 

R. Cremona:   And other fact that I have already quoted from this document. 

Magistrate:   It does not result to you from the parameters of document RC18 that the other items on the document are false? 

R. Cremona:   No from the parameters of document RC18 no.

Defence:   But during your investigations you said that you had words with other witnesses. In fact there were moments when you brought Mr. Ellul Grech to the depot and kept him waiting for two hours between 10.00 and 12.00 while you had words with other people.

(The witness gave misleading replies. On Tuesday morning Cremona tried to convince the defendant to sign a statement that Cremona had concocted. The defendant refused to sign it. Thereafter the defendant was fingerprinted and photographed. After that the defendant was questioned for a while but felt unwell and was sent to Valletta lock up where a doctor was brought to him and administered a painkilling injection).

R. Cremona:   Right.

Defence:   Now, among these other people if it was not at the moment or in the next stage or before you communicated with an agent or representative of HSBC or Midland Bank?

R. Cremona:   No.

Defence:   Meaning that that letter RC18 was not passed on by HSBC?

R. Cremona:   No.

Defence:   Who passed it on to you?

R. Cremona:   Dr. Tonio Azzopardi who is the solicitor of the Honourable Minister John Dalli.

Defence:   Meaning the Minister’s solicitor passed on this letter to you. So we agree that as you have stated earlier Minister Dalli passed on this letter to you, not him personally but his solicitor. Assuming that this document is presumably falsified meaning RC17, why are you connecting this with Mr. Ellul Grech? Why are you coming to the conclusion that it was Mr. Ellul Grech who sent that document RC17?

R. Cremona:   If you pass me the document RC17 I will explain something to you. If one looks at document RC17 one can see that it’s top part from here to here is exactly the same as the other document Y without the other figures, we have just submitted this to the court.

Defence:   You assumed that document RC17 was sent by the defendant because part of the document or part of the print that is on that document is on the other document. 

R. Cremona:   Yes. Excluding other facts that resulted to assistant commissioner Michael Cassar.

Defence:   Now, do you have any information how many were received in Malta and Gozo?

Magistrate:   RC17. 

R. Cremona:   I can say hundreds however I cannot say exactly. These were passed on to the forensic expert and they are being counted and examined. 

Defence:   Good so it is not just Mr. Ellul Grech who was in possession of document RC17?  

R. Cremona:   RC17 was circulated. For example Inspector Walter Spiteri received it. 

Defence:   Meaning, the question is that document RC17 that was received by many people is not the one that was falsified?

R. Cremona: Yes. (Confirmation that the bank statement that was circulated could have been original).

 CONTINUED ON PAGE 5  


R. Cremona - His Biased Witness P17

R. Cremona - His Biased Witness P18



 R. Cremona - His Biased Witness P19

 R.Cremona - His Biased Witness P20