Showing posts with label Gloucester Animal Control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gloucester Animal Control. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Section 3-15 A Holiday Story - Compliments of Carl (Chuck) Shipley and Jeff Stillman

The following is a story that is presently going on in Gloucester County, Virginia and is written by people we believe are being victimized by Gloucester Animal Control.  The story is in their own words.  We have copies of the files to back up their story and we have already used one of them on this site.

Attacked By Animal Control?

The following is a story written by two people presently being victimized, in our opinion, by Gloucester Animal Control.

The names of the victims are being withheld for their own protection. Those names listed here with Animal Control do know who these victims are. We have full documentation to the accuracy of this story.  The following story is written in their own words.

At this time my daughter and myself are living in a motel room. We have lost our home and our business and my job. We also have charges pending against us from Animal Control of Gloucester that if they are not dismissed may affect my long time career as a Licensed Veterinary Technician. We feel that we are being targeted and we feel that these charges are unjustified. I am sorry this is so long but there are lots of details and I felt that some of even the small details are important.

About seven months ago we lost our house of 10 years. Although we were in workout with the bank, they told us they did not like dealing with small home businesses and our house was sold to Fannie Mae They gave us less then a month to vacate. Our home business is a educational program using small exotic animals. We have birds that talk and sing, a tortoise big enough to stand on, a groundhog that sits up and lets you pet him, reptiles that do feeding demonstrations. We have about 25 small animals, none are poisonous or dangerous. Just this year we did 45 schools, 30 churches, 8 nursing homes, 60 private programs and several fund raisers, we did more than a few of these free or at a reduced rate as a community service. We have been operating for about 6 years and we have hundreds of positive comments. We were USDA and Fish & Game licensed. I have been a licensed Veterinary Technician for over 30 years. I have worked in zoos and with veterinary clinics, I have also been a wildlife rehabber both federal and state for all that time. My daughter has been working with animals her whole life including being a veterinary assistant at several veterinary clinics. Our animals are more than just our business. They are like family and their welfare has always come before our own.

Due to the stress of the move and all that was going on I had a physical collapse and spent a week in the hospital. Even though I had no insurance the situation was so serious they would not let me go home. My daughter was left to move alone with 3 friends from our church. We ended up moving to a farm in Gloucester, we paid rent and utilities and helped around the farm.

While we were in the process of moving a young man that had a grudge toward my daughter started a slander campaign against my daughter and our business. He said we were running from the law and that we had warrants against us, all the accusations were false. The day we moved to the farm we got a call from the caretaker of the woman we were living with brothers home. He said Gloucester Animal Control was over there asking where we were, they also said there were warrants out for our arrest. He was very upset. Shortly thereafter Animal Control showed up where we were. Officer Jeff Stillman and a woman deputy got out of their truck and the first thing Jeff said to me was that we had warrants for our arrest from the county we had moved from. My daughter was on the phone with the sheriffs department and they said that that was false. After we told Jeff this he continued to berate us. He was rude and belligerent toward us and our new landlord. He accused us of lying about when we had moved the animals into the county and of trying to avoid the permit process in Gloucester. We tried to explain about how we had moved quickly and that we were ready to do whatever we needed to be fully compliant. He continued to yell and threaten us and he asked to see the animals. When we took him in to see the animals he was visibly afraid of the reptiles. He stated loudly several times don't open the cages. He took pictures of the animals through the cages. He said that he was afraid our snakes would escape and cause a problem like Florida had. We explained that all our snakes were females and that we had safe enclosures and had never had an escape. After he left I was shaking with exhaustion and stress, he towered over us and yelled right in our faces. I had never met an officer so unprofessional rude and just plain threatening before.

The only animals that a permit were needed for were the four snakes and the groundhog so we started the permitting process. We acquired the insurance $50,000 liability and had everything in order but the vet visit. We made several appointments but had trouble getting vets that would see reptiles. We kept animal control updated to our progress because the vet visit was finally scheduled one day before the paperwork was due. At the last moment the vet changed the appointment to one day later. We called animal control and asked if they wanted us to turn in everything but the vet papers and we would have them the next day. They told us to turn in everything together. The vet visit went well and we turned in the paperwork on the date it was due. We then got a call from Jeff, he said the paperwork was one day late and he had issued a summons for late paperwork. Again he was quite rude. We had spent considerable money with the insurance and vet visits to comply and I felt this was a bit much especially since we had kept them updated to the status. I complained to Carl Shipley the head of Animal Control who I know personally through church about Jeff's unprofessional behavior. Steve Barneck and Jeff Stillman showed up to do the inspection. They were both polite. They issued the permit the next day. When I went to court the judge asked why the paperwork had been late and I explained the veterinary issues. All the while I was talking Jeff kept interrupting and making comments about myself and the animals. The judge dismissed and I had to pay $100.00 court costs.

After 3-4 semi-peaceful months the woman we were staying issued us an eviction notice. We looked desperately for a place for us and the animals. We were able to get a storage unit to store our personal belongings and a friend offered her spacious building to house the animals. We were ready to move.

In compliance with our permit I caught Carl Shipley at church the day before and let him know we were moving the animals. I told him we would let them know the exact address as soon as we got them moved. The day we were moving I had to work, I had gotten a job at a new veterinary clinic. My daughter and a friend rented a u-haul and were packing up when animal control showed up. Once again it was Jeff Stillman and the woman deputy. He went up and talked to our landlord who was very upset. Things went from bad to worse once again Jeff was angry and belligerent. he berated my daughter about her dog, a husky mix, saying that he knew the dog was a wolf hybrid. He said that she had no rabies proof even though she said she had all the papers and that she had just gotten the dog as a gift for her birthday. The first thing Jeff saw when he entered the animal room was a dead kitten by the food bowl. My daughter had no idea that it was sick much less dying and was quite upset to see It even though it was not ours and belonged to the person who owned the farm. Jeff demanded to know what had happened to it and that she was responsible for it's death. He yelled at her and told her the room smelled terrible and that the cages were beyond filthy. The cages had been cleaned the morning before and several of the animals were in temporary traveling cages because we were moving them. We planned on cleaning and re bedding everyone as we moved them. She called me crying in hysterics that Jeff had screamed at her telling her she was in serious trouble and that he was going to issue a bunch of charges against her. He frightened her badly because he wouldn't talk to her he just kept screaming right in her face. He then photographed the cages. The female deputy examined the animals because Jeff was afraid to touch them and she stated that even though the cages could use cleaning the animals looked healthy and bright eyed. This whole exchange was witnessed by the man that was helping my daughter move, he was appalled at the unprofessional conduct he saw. Jeff stated that he would be back the next day to make sure we had vacated. We spent the early evening and late into the night getting everyone crated and getting all our belongings packed up.

That night it got very cold, we loaded up the animals last so that they would stay warm and headed to the building where they were supposed to stay. When we arrived the building turned out to be too large to heat properly, it was 30 degrees and we didn't know what to do. We combined all of the animals in the back of the van, and spent the remainder of the night running the heater in the van to keep the animals alive and warm. It had to be the worst night of my life. I was afraid that we would lose all our animals, I went from immense fear to complete despair. We had no where to go and no one to turn to. We were completely alone and afraid. We were sure that we were going to have to turn the animals over, and lose them all forever just so that they wouldn't freeze. On the off chance we contacted an acquaintance that we knew in Northumberland County, he managed to connect us with a woman who knew someone who had a room where we could stay for a couple of weeks while we adjusted some things.

When we arrived there was a 15'x15' tack shed with a bed, microwave, and small fridge with no running water, we had to go into the house to use the bathroom and to clean up. The room was small, but we made the best of it we set the animals up and at least we were warm and safe. The woman who gave us a temporary place called animal control just to let them know where we were, because they said that they needed to know where the animals went. Jeff told her that the animals were horribly malnourished and badly cared for, the woman informed him that she had seen the animals and that they were healthy, well socialized and sweet. Jeff then proceeded to call the man who had helped us find this place and told him what horrible animal caretakers we were. The man then called the place where we were staying hysterical because he was worried about the animals, because of what Jeff had told him. The woman cleared things up quickly, and informed him that Jeff had lied to him about the condition of the animals. About a week after we arrived, two Gloucester County Troopers showed up late in the evening on a Saturday served my daughter 12 summons. 1 for each animal cage, and one for her dogs rabies, which she had proof of. There happened to be a lawyer from Gloucester there watching his daughter, and he asked what the summons were about. He told us that animal control justified their jobs, by giving out multiple summons instead of just 1, and even if the charges were dropped we would still end up paying thousands in court fees. It was a very discouraging and worrisome conversation.

Because we were still having trouble finding a place, we started re homing our animals, so that they would be safe until we found a place to live and got back on our feet. It took almost a week and hundreds of resources to get the animals placed in the best places that they could go. Near the end of week two, I went to the library and saw Jeff at a store on my way there. About 15 minutes after Jeff saw me, I received a call from my employer and he let me go. It just so happens that Jeff runs the crematorium business that my employer used, so he knew my employer well and knew that I worked there. I talked with Carl Shipley at church that Sunday, and he got very rude with me and told me that he had seen the pictures, and that the cages were just filthy and that I had a bunch of summons as well, but that they hadn't served them because they couldn't find me. I was at the same place where my daughter received hers, and they knew that. The woman at the house where we were staying had already rented the room we were living in, before she had let us come and stay there so we had to find another place to go. Our church got us a temporary place at an inn in West Point, a couple days after we got settled a New Kent county officer showed up and served me 14 summons. 1 for each animal cage and for the rabies and tags on my two dogs, even though I have rabies certificates on them that we could show him. The summons were dated weeks after my daughters were. Talk about kicking us while we are down. We are currently looking for any kind of jobs and trying to find a safe place to live in the meantime.

The name of the church is not mentioned in this story and we see no reason to bring them into the story other than to applaud the majority of folks at this church as they have stepped up and have been helping these two ladies.  Now here is the rest of the story with Carl, (Chuck), Shipley and the additional 14 summons or warrants.  The mother is the one who owns the business which owns the animals.  The daughter does not.  Our opinion based on experience with Gloucester County's legal system is that these 14 warrants did not exist prior to the mother meeting with Carl Shipley.  It was during this church meeting that the mother explained to Carl that the animals did not belong to the daughter.  What that means.  Had Carl not known about this, when the court date came up, the entire case would have been thrown out.  You can not charge someone with an offense against animal care when they do not own the animals and hence are not responsible for the care of the animals.  

  That would have put a very bad light on Animal Control for wasting the court's time.  So once Carl learned that the animals were not the daughters, he told the mother that she had papers waiting for her.  Two days later she received 14 papers compared to the daughters 12.  When we looked at the papers for the mother, we noticed some nice little tricks being played.  Items added to the 14 papers that were not on the first 12.  In our opinion, the warrants for the mother have all been back dated.  Slippery in our view.  We are not saying that this is an illegal act in this case.  That we just do not know.  We just think it's more shady work on the part of Gloucester County officials.  If you go a few posts back, you will see a copy of one of the warrants issued to the mother.  Highlighted on that warrant is a date received and initials.  These were not on the daughter's copies.

  Here it is again.  This is one of the warrants given to the mother.

This second copy here is one that has been issued to the daughter.  No time and or date stamp.  That does not make them any more or any less legal.  We bet though that if one could view the meta data on the creation of these files, that one would see that the warrants for the mother were done on or about November 26th, 2012.  Much later than that of the daughter.  Again, we can not say that it's not legal, just shady in our own view.

  These two ladies are in need of assistance.  If you can help, please send us an email through this site and we will pass it on to them.  They will contact you and you will be dealing with them and not us.

  They are in need of shelter, food, support and they also feel they need legal representation when they have to appear in court.  We are helping them as much as we can but our own resources can only stretch so far.  They are still in a motel room until the end of the week.  Money is extremely tight.

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Gloucester Animal Control Meta Data Concerns

As we have been discussing throughout this case, meta data as evidence can be very tricky and can say a lot or say very little.  In this case, it continues to say a great deal.  What we are about to show you is the meta data we have pulled from the Gloucester Animal Control audio files DW_C0152, DW_C0153 and DW_C0154.  These we found to be very unusual.  We will address the issues after we show you these files.

On the meta data from Jeff Stillman's last photo, Jeff Stillman and Steve Baraneck were finished on the property at 12:17 PM.  That means they started back towards their office in the courthouse area at around 12:20 PM..  Average drive time between the victims property and their office is between 20 and 25 minutes putting them into the parking lot for the Animal Control office at about 12:40 and 12:45.

Advertisement:  Free MP3 album download.  Diablo Swing Band, The Butchers Ballroom.  No strings, no catch, no kidding.  Read the stories, follow the links, get stuff, save money.  Click Here

Click On Image To Enlarge

  A more than fair assessment especially on a Tuesday while school was still in session.  Steve was using a digital IC recorder to audio tape the events.  (Pictured in hand above).  Looking at the meta data, one would say that the time and date stamps seem to be in line with all other evidence.  A few things to take into consideration.  One, there are two types of IC recorders.  One type only allows for transfer of the audio to a computer in real time.  That would mean that the above meta data is virtually impossible to achieve without forging fake meta data.  (Not at all impossible mind you).

  The other type of transfer on the more expensive models allows for USB data transfer cables to download and or even upload audio files.  With that said, let's assume that Gloucester Animal Control uses the type with the data transfer cables.  That would make the above meta data look more authentic then.  Right?  Well not so fast.  We contacted several manufacturers of these IC reorders.  Here is what we learned.

  The units with the data transfer cables also separately record meta data date and time onto each audio file independent of each computer recording of meta data.  What does that mean?  That means it is very easy for forge and fake meta data coming from one of these IC recorders.  How?  Take out the battery for a minute and reset the date and time on the IC Recorder.  I can record a conversation today and create meta data that shows that the conversation took place on May 4th, 2010 and 1:04 PM.  

Click On Image To Enlarge

This is one of the email responses we received back from the world's largest manufacturer of IC recorders, Sony Corporation.  We own an IC recorder and have the manual for it.  We also have Sony's software for transferring audio data to computers.  We know every type of compression codec's used for conversion of the audio files.  Yes, you can save the files as WAV files, however, there is a second set of meta data on Gloucester Animal Control's files.  Let's look at it.

Sony allows you to save in WAV format, but guess what?  Sony does not use IMA ADCPI compression at all.  IMA ADCPI is used by Microsoft and Apple respectfully as it is a 4 to 1 compression of WAV files.  Sony uses other WAV compression technologies.  What does this mean?  A very high probability that the audio is fake in every respect. 

Click On Image To Enlarge

The above is from our own manual for our Sony IC recorder.  We have the ICD-BX112 model.  We have to transfer in real time as we did not opt for the USB data transfer cable.  Another note we must make.  IC recorders start and stop each recording with a distinctive beep.  These beeps are missing from Gloucester Animal Control's recordings DW_C0152, DW_C0153 and DW_C0154.  We are continuing to scour the sites of other manufacturers to check their codec technologies.  We have not found one yet that uses the IMA ADCPI technology codec.   As we have said in the past, this is exactly why courts rarely allow this type of evidence.  It must first be put through tremendous scrutiny before it is even allowed to be considered.  Gloucester Circuit Court never even scrutinized these recordings in the least bit.

You can catch up on the entire story over on this site.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Gloucester Animal Control Audio Audit Testing Shows Serious Issues

The above audio shows some very serious issues with the Gloucester Animal Control file DW_C0152 and Steve Baranek's claims about the audio.  We were granted permission by the victims in this case to go back to their property and conduct a number of simulation tests.  Our objective was to see if any area of the audio could be even considered somewhat authentic.  All of our simulation tests failed to show any accuracy with the audio, DW_C0152, as could have possibly happened the way the audio claims it did.  We loaded the audio onto one of our tablets and tried numerous recreations to validate any area of the audio.  Every simulation we tried just did not stand up.

  Let's start with this above audio.  Steve Baranek would have you believe he is driving down a road and then into the driveway of the victims property.  Yet you do not hear any motor running nor do you hear any tire road noise.  In fairness, we cut out tiny sections of audio file DW_C0152 where the victims names and later address was used.  In our own simulation, we used a pocket recorder like Steve was using.  It's a Sony digital recorder.  We did not talk during the taping as we were just looking to see if we could even pick up any road noise.  Sure enough we picked up all the road noise, the turn signal used to turn into the driveway, the difference in the road noise between the main road and the driveway, all the sounds of turning off the engine and opening and closing our doors.  We were in an SUV for our tests.

  What we also find very interesting is the photographic evidence above.  If Steve was the first person at the gate, as he states when he is pulling up, that the gate looks like it is locked, why is the first car in this picture a Gloucester County Sheriff's Office patrol vehicle?  Also, how could Steve see the gate with this patrol vehicle in the way?  Super human powers?  So just within the first thirty seconds alone, we see evidence that Steve Baranek started manufacturing false evidence.  He was not driving in a vehicle as he would have others believe.  That means everything beyond the first thirty seconds is without question garbage.  It's meaningless.  Has no use and no value.  The moment Steve Baranek started recording was a complete sham.    And still we have so much more on this.

Gloucester, VA Links and News.  GVLN Website.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Gloucester Animal Control and Gloucester Sheriff's Deputy Collude To Manufacture False Evidence.

Gloucester Animal Control and Gloucester Sheriff's Deputy Collude To Manufacture False Evidence.

The above video is taken from Gloucester Animal Control file DW_C0153 and in the first part you hear Shaun Doyle talking to Steve Baraneck saying to Steve, “Your gonna love these pictures I'm gonna getcha”, Take everything straight outta the bedroom.” This part does not make sense except to say that it was accidentally cut in by Gloucester's very own mashup expert. The second part of the video however was a major mistake in the fact that this little section of the audio was never taken out.

We have Lt. Hawkins of the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office whispering to Steve Baranek, telling him, “Nothing, Nothing”, as an order to produce false evidence to say that there was no running water anywhere on this property. Yes I have the proof it was Lt Hawkins. This is what you call a smoking gun when it comes to evidence. Gloucester Animal Control and the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office have colluded in a conspiracy to produce false evidence against the victim in this case. Any and all negative evidence supposedly found by the Gloucester Animal Control and the Gloucester Sheriff's Office in this case was all manufactured. None of it was true in the least bit. They illegally raided this home for two reasons as we have already reported.

So we are looking at a fake search warrant, collusion between Gloucester Animal Control and Gloucester County clerks to produce false documents. We are looking at a fake 911 call. We are looking at several pieces of evidence that collusion has taken place to produce false evidence and we also have a false arrest in this case. We also have fake recordings used as evidence. Does it get any worse? Well yes it does. We have a lot more yet to come.

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Fake Phone Call Message Embedded On Gloucester Evidence File

Fake Phone Call Message Embedded On Gloucester Evidence File

The above audio file clip was never supposed to be heard by you or me or anyone else except for Steve Baranek. It's a clip from Animal Control Audio file DW_C0153 and was a personal message sent to Steve Baranek by the person who creates these false audios for Gloucester County. How do I know it's fake? Listen to the audio again. When Steve answers the phone and says hello, the response is a well placed dog bark insertion. You do not hear anyone on the other end of the phone line and also there are some words cut out to make the conversation lean in a certain direction. Where Steve states he has been a real good dick today, the word dick is manipulated to fool the ear into hearing just that exact phrase.

The entire phone conversation is a fraud. It's not worth producing all the forensic evidence on this small clip as it already speaks for itself.

Gloucester, VA Links and News.  GVLN Website.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Gloucester 911 Call Was Fraudulent - More Evidence

The above video contains audio extracted from Gloucester Animal Control audio file, DW_C0152 and this audio has numerous people discussing what Holli M Cohoon had said about the one call that came through her watch.  What these people are discussing does not match the 911 audio call we have already published.  Some of the information matches, other areas show information that has been both removed from the 911 call and is also evidence of Gloucester County officials conspiring to produce false evidence against the victim in this illegal raid.  We have a lot more to say about all this in a future article.

Gloucester, VA Links and News.  GVLN Website.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Gloucester Illegal Search Warrant? Last Words, Maybe

For the most part, we consider the argument about the search warrant over.  In our opinion, the search warrant is in fact fraudulent at every level and at every angle of argument.  The reason we bring it up yet again is for two reasons.  One, there is still another area where the search warrant was not valid, and two, is because this is where the next part of our story begins.  So we are going to detail one from above and show yet another angle where the search warrant was never valid.  If you have not been following this story, you need to start from the beginning to play catch up.  There are two affiant's to this search warrant which is perfectly legal.  The original affiant's identity does not have to be legally disclosed to the defendant.  No issues here at this time.  We have already argued that the original affiant was not a trustworthy affiant.  What we have not argued, because we did not have the information until now is that the original affiant's affidavit could have only given both Animal Control and The Gloucester County Sheriff's Office, access to the inside of the house and no outside areas whatsoever if the original affiant was even considered reliable.

  Remember, we already stated that the defendant/occupant - victim, never received a copy of the affidavit attachment that was required by law.  What is also interesting is that the victim's attorney did get a copy of the affidavit but refused to show it to the defendant/occupant - victim, the attorney being, Michael T Soberick.  The victim has just seen it for the first time ever, today.  The search warrant was written out as follows, areas to be searched - a single family dwelling, it's curtilage and environs.  The so called search warrant was written way to broadly to be valid based on the original affiant's complaint.  Funny thing is, Mike Soberick saw this and both the victim and husband argued that the search warrant was not valid with him on other areas, never even knowing about this area.  I have yet to see any part of this search warrant where anyone can state it is valid and actually mean it.

Due to the nature of the confidential information on the affidavit, we are not posting it.  It will be made available only to the following entities.
1.)  Law enforcement - No Conditions or exclusions of facts
2.)  News Agencies - Conditions that certain information be kept confidential.  Details upon request.

  An area we find very interesting is that it was Judge Jeffrey W Shaw who heard this case.  The Honorable Judge Shaw and Michael T Soberick, Esq. were once law partners.  Hmm!  So what am I getting at?  It's just an observation............................Maybe.

Now could it be that the reason why the search warrant was written much broader than it should have been was because of some kind of vendetta?  A case can be made for that.  The real reason though exists in the DW_C0152 audio file.  The file we have shown in our forensic audits to not be valid in our professional opinion.  Can you guess yet what our next story is going to cover?  DW_C0152 audio with an included forensic audit report showing where the concept for how the search warrant had to be written came into play and the forensic report showing how the audio was doctored in this area.  It's really pretty hilarious when you hear the forensic audio.  You get to hear how the organic background changes in the middle of the conversation.  It's not possible for that to happen unless of course you alter the recording.

  Did we mention the go to person yet who creates these audios for Gloucester County?

Wait;  The legal stuff.  Our lawyers wanted us to mention that we are not lawyers.  So here it is.  We are not lawyers.  Now our lawyers are happy.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Gloucester Animal Control File DW_C0152, More Issues

The above is an audio file clipping made after about 9 minutes into the audio.  The file is Animal Control file DW_C0152.  It is a very small clipping that under normal circumstances most people dismiss as mere chatter background noise.  I repeat the clip 9 times in the above video.  What you hear are chopped up voices.  These are remnants from splice-outs.  Evidence that this recording is in fact altered.  Now I can show anyone in Gloucester County that what the courts are sitting on is in fact altered evidence.  I can use their files and show this all to them with no tricks at all.  In fact, I would welcome that challenge.

This is a screen shot image of the working area where I am deeply auditing the audio file.  From the clip above, this is the image used in that video.

This picture pretty much says it all.  Again, a screen shot from my working area on this audio file.  You can click on any of the images to enlarge them.

When listening to this section of the audio, there was a very drastic background inorganic noise shift that proved was a direct marker that this part of the audio was spliced in.

In the yellow highlighted box above, we have an inorganic break in the noise spectrum that is evidence of a splice.

In this section, the voice patterns had an inorganic sound to them.  So we opened the recording visuals on an expanded mode.  We found an inorganic splice in.  The voice record has also been tampered with.

Someone somewhere went through a lot of trouble to doctor this recording.  I have found tons of evidence like this throughout the entire recording.  This is just a mere sample of what is here.  Did someone in Gloucester County guess that no one would ever figure this out?  This isn't rocket science.  It is technical yes, but not rocket science.  

Monday, May 7, 2012

Steven Baranek Of Gloucester Animal Control Audio File DW_0152

Gloucester Animal Control With More Fake Evidence?

I have to make this statement before going any further. If one digs enough, one can always find fault in any legal case. Overall a legal case should be very sound despite fault being found. In this particular case, I continue to find so much fault and so little sound evidence from where I am looking that one can not help but to trounce all over it.

The above audio is four minutes and thirty seconds long. Using Gloucester County's own documents, we see some very serious issues here that can not be ignored. This is audio file DW_0152 and was produced by Steve Baranek of Gloucester County Animal Control. This audio was produced using a pocket digital recorder. The date of this audio is May 4th, 2010. The entire length of this audio track is one hour four minutes and fifty five seconds long. This exact file was used as evidence in a Gloucester County Circuit Court to prosecute the defendant/occupant of the home we have been reporting on.

Below is a snapshot where Steve Baranek testifies in court that this recording is a true and accurate recording. (That also goes for the other audio clips we have already produced from this main audio).
Keep in mind that Monique W Donner, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney was well aware of this recording before going into court and she accepted this recording as evidence as did the attorney for the defense, Michael T Soberick, Esq. 

Now let's look at a section of Sgt. Paul Emanuele's Offense/Incident Report for this same case.

When we listen to the audio recording above, Steve Baranek would have us believe he is driving up to the defendant/occupant's house. Steve states that the time is 9:06. (AM). Now look at what Sgt Paul Emanuele states for the time of his dispatch and the time of his arrival at the residence. Sgt Emanuele states he was there at 8:58 (AM). That means when Steve Baranek pulls into the driveway, he should have seen Sgt Emanuele's police car and Sgt Emanuele. Yet Steve never acknowledges seeing anyone in the audio clip above that is four minutes and thirty seconds long. But wait, Steve should also be meeting a number of other people there as well according to Sgt Emanuele.

Steve should be also meeting Carl Shipley, Jeff Stillman and Shaun Doyle. Yet he never says anything either to or about these guys. How can that be? How can anyone possibly be expected to believe this recording unless Sgt Emanuele got his facts very wrong or maybe, the recording is a false and inaccurate piece of evidence? In our professional opinion, the recoding is very false and highly inaccurate. Our opinion is that the recording is so chopped and manipulated that it's not worth a thing as evidence for the county and should have been thrown out.

These days most courts do not even allow this type of evidence into the court because it is so easy to manipulate the recordings. Now what I will tell you is that I did make a few minor cuts in the above recording. The cuts I made were to the personal information that I removed to protect the defendant/occupant of this case. I also cleaned up the sound track to make the audio easier to hear and understand. No other changes were made by us.

Let's move on to the next issue. Steve Baranek starts to play with his phone and you can hear the phone keep repeating, “Say A Command”. That means you can hear what's going on through the ear piece of the phone. Yet, when he claims to be making a call, you do not hear anyone on the other side.
I find that highly unlikely and believe he was faking the call. I would love to see the phone records for that call. The time of that so-called call took place was 9:09 (AM). The proof is on Animal Control to prove this call and time is accurate as it has to 100% match up with the recording for the recording to be a true and accurate record of events. Anyone care to bet that the county can not produce this evidence? Anyone care to bet that the county does not even try?

Also, if you listen to the above audio very closely, you do hear a number of people in the background talking as well as their radio dispatches broadcasting. These are people Steve Baranek never acknowledge. Another issue, if Steve Baranek claims that he trimmed areas out of the recording because they were just not needed, well, then that is not a true and accurate record of events then is it.

Further, if it could even possibly be imagined that the above call did take place, why didn't Steve Baranek state the reason why he was there? He was there with a search warrant? He had a legal obligation to state just that or his phone call could be considered nothing more than harassment. Are you seriously going to tell me that those who are charged with investigating and must do so with the use and tools of a search warrant is not trained in the laws of such? Could this possibly be evidence that the concept of a search warrant had not even been thought of yet? See the last article and ask yourself that exact question.

So what we are looking at here, in our opinion, Steve Baranek's testimony is false and misleading and needs to be expunged from this case. The same with Holli M Cohoon's testimony. That only leaves Sgt. Paul Emanuele's testimony. In the future we will be re printing the entire 96 page court report. Sgt Paul Emanuele's testimony is pretty much nil and contributes about nothing to the case. The entire case needs to be thrown out and all charges removed in our opinion. We will elaborate on Sgt Paul Emanuele's statements and report in the future as this too has holes that are huge gaps.

I can not begin to understand how Michael T Soberick, with all the same evidence we both have and have looked at, could not begin to see any of these issues? Or did he and he just didn't do anything about them? Did he throw his client to the wolves? Come on now. Mr Soberick is a highly esteemed Gloucester County attorney. It's like we said, this case has more turns and surprises around each corner than you can ever possibly imagine.

Shaun Doyle of Gloucester Animal Control Statement?

Gloucester Animal Control File DW_0152 Clip

What we are presenting here is a small clip where there is a discussion going on between Animal Control Officer Steve Baranek and we believe Officer Shaun Doyle. The above audio has been cleaned up as much as we could clean it up so that we are able to hear the entire conversation. This audio starts at exactly 6 minutes and 36 seconds into Steve Baranek's audio recording. We have played this audio over and over and have spent hours on making sure we know exactly what was said. Steve Baranek's participation in the audio is self explanatory where Shaun Doyle's is written out.  Shaun is a fast talker.

Here is what Shaun Doyle is saying to Steve Baranek;

Shaun; “Call her again and tell her we have a search warrant. With that search warrant legally we can kick the door in by then. We have opportunity to do it in the night.”

Okay, so Steve Baranek's own recording shows without question, that he never tells the defendant/occupant of this home that he is there with a search warrant. That fact is well established. What we find difficult is why the discussion for calling her again to tell her they have a search warrant? By law, that is what they were already supposed to have done. Second, why the discussion, “With that search warrant we can legally kick the door in by then?” This part makes some sense yet it does not. These guys are already supposed to be there with a search warrant aren't they? Third and most disturbing, Shaun's statement, “We have opportunity to do it in the night.”

What? Why would anyone suggest coming back in the night to kick a door in based on a search warrant that is supposed to be for Animal Control to check on the condition of animals? Is it better to search a property and the condition of animals in the middle of the night? This conversation makes no sense and is way out of context. In fact it is our opinion and that opinion is based on what we have been told by our source inside the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office, that there was no search warrant at this point and this is where the idea first came up. Thanks Shaun.

  Now Shaun Doyle is no longer with Animal Control and also no longer living in Virginia.  He moved to California with his wife.  When this audio recording happened, May 4th, 2010, Officer Shaun Doyle was fairly new to the position.  We are wondering if he left both Animal Control and Virginia because of issues just like this one?

We believe more was said here than should have been. But let me tell you, if you find this disturbing, wait until the next story.