Evidence That 911 Dispatcher Lied In Court?

Evidence That 911 Dispatcher Lied In Court?

As we said, we would get back to all of this. The above video again is made for the audio recording. This audio clip came from 9 minutes into the clip. It's file number is DW_0152 and was recorded by Steve Baranek. To put it simply, how do you mistake a shovel for a gun? You were probably thinking that in the last story, I may have lost my mind. Well I guess not after all. Looks like it's Holly who can not distinguish between a gun and a shovel. That now puts the 911 call into some very serious questions. And we are getting a lot closer to showing that maybe the two calls that came through Holly's watch have been turned into one to produce false evidence after all.

What is sad is that all of this was right in front of the attorney and he missed it. Or did he?

Some facts to keep in mind.  The defendant/occupant witnessed an intruder on her property chasing one of her dogs and trying to do bodily harm to that dog.  He was chasing the dog with a pipe.  Look at the castle doctrine, one has the right to use whatever force is necessary  to protect one's home and property.  This is highly enforced here in the State of Virginia.  

911 Call Operator Holly M Cohoon Testimony

911 operator call testimony

View more presentations from Chuck Thompson

911 Call Operator Holly M Cohoon Testimony

Our last story presenting the 911 call audio created a lot of questions and concerns. It is our opinion that the call is altered. Here is her court testimony above presented as a slide presentation. The smoking gun is right in her own testimony. She states that she remembers having a second conversation with the defendant/occupant and the defendant/occupant claiming to go out the door with a shovel. You see, it never made sense why she kept saying in the 911 call presented in this court as evidence why Holly, the 911 dispatcher, kept saying do not shoot out that door during the call. (Yes I know there is a difference between a shovel and a gun. But our upcoming story is going to clarify this).

Now it's looking more like that 911 call has been altered.

In cross examination of Holly, the attorney asks if Holly listened to a second tape of the voice recordings of the 911 calls made that day regarding this specific case. Holly states no. The attorney asks why not. Holly states she does not work there anymore. But wait, Holly did state to the prosecuting attorney that she did in fact hear this first tape recording in preparation to this proceeding. Is anyone scratching there heads yet? I sure am. Could it be that the reason a second tape was never presented is because the Sheriff's Office doctored two tapes to make one? Go back and listen to that 911 call recording again and then look at Holly's testimony. A lot of questions sure surface now.

Holly also testifies that she did not speak with any deputies at one moment of the cross examination and then states that she did speak with them via radio the next. Which is it? In an upcoming article, we are going to show evidence that Holly was not a trustworthy witness here. In fact, we will show she blew her side of the story that she was supposed to present. This was all staged in our opinion and we are going to present you with that evidence.

Holly made it very clear that she no longer works as a 911 dispatcher. Could it be because she is aware of all the mis-deeds going on at the Sheriff's Office? Was she so scared that she was willing to lie on the stand?

Gloucester County Forged 911 Call?

Gloucester County Forged 911 Call?

The above video has been produced mainly for the audio recording that was used in a court of law right here in Gloucester County, Virginia. This recording was both submitted and accepted as evidence. The 911 operator, one  Holly M Cohoon, even testified to it. Well if you have played this once already, did you actually hear what was being said? There are way too many issues with it to be authentic. It is our professional opinion that this is a forged recording. You may want to play this a few more times and  listen carefully to the recording.

Before we go too far, I must state that I have also altered this call in a slight way. I removed a very tiny section where the caller states her address. This was done to protect this party. Other than that, the call is exactly what was played in a local court. So let's look at some of the issues.

1. The caller to the 911 operator goes through at least five different emotions during a brief one minute and 6 second call.  Even in a mental institution, the worst patients do not go through that many emotions in that fast a period.
2. The 911 operator, Holly M Cohoon, tells the caller not to shoot out the door. The caller never stated she was even by a door. The 911 operator, Holly M Cohoon, does not state that once, but instead she states it multiple times so you know she isn't making a mistake.
3. In less than 40 seconds, the 911 operator, Holly M Cohoon, breaks every form of protocol and states that there is already a sheriff's deputy outside. She does not radio for a patrol car, she does not stop the conversation to verify that there is a deputy outside. She flat out states it.

We had a 911 operator from another area analyze this call and we were told that there was no way it could possibly be authentic in their professional opinion, which matched our opinion.

Now this has everything to do with what we have been reporting about. This does tie into the reports of Gloucester County Officials ignoring our requests for information and also our report on the search warrant. This call took place on May 4^th, 2010. Numerous off-duty sheriff's deputies were all over the property. What alarmed the caller to the 911 operator was The fact that an unknown male called to the defendant's telephone screaming for the defendant/occupant of this home to get out of the house immediately. The reason was never stated. (Yes, we will show that a reason was never stated in a later article). What further alarmed the defendant/occupant was that when she looked out the window, she saw an unidentified intruder beating a dog in the front yard with a metal pipe. 

The occupant of the home hung up on the unidentified caller and called 911. There was no reason whatsoever for anyone to be calling the occupant and ordering her to get out of the house.  

Now this next part is only what we have been told from a person inside the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office and we have no way to prove it. In fairness, we can only report what we were told. This was a "Fun Raid," ordered by sheriff Steve Gentry. This "Fun Raid" had dual purposes. One, the occupant of this home had made a complaint about members of the Gloucester Sheriff's Office via a letter to Steve Gentry. Two, the home was within a certain demographic in that the owners/occupants were known gun owners and in an upper economic bracket.

What we were told is the "Fun Raid" was for the purpose of grabbing the guns and whatever cash and/or other valuables could be easily taken. What went wrong? First, no one expected anyone to be home in the house.  Second, because the owners/occupants own animals, Animal Control was called in to take over and legitimize the so-called "search."

Okay, in all reality, that seems pretty far fetched even for me to fully grasp. We were told by the person inside the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office that this is fairly common and the way they normally get away with it is by creating a shoot-out with whomever the target is and killing them. This particular victim lived --through a series of good luck and cooperating at the right times. Again, I have no way to verify these statements made but it does make sense as to why the search warrant is so sloppy and full of errors. It was produced during this event to cover tracks is what we believe. It would also start to explain why the 911 call, in our professional opinion, is forged.

Now if you really consider this that hard to believe, we are nowhere near the end of the story. It continues to get a lot worse and there is so much more.

New synthetic drug is dangerous - Amped

New synthetic drug is dangerous

The Above is a link to the story on-line.  Amped is the newest craze and it is sold over the counter, including right here in Gloucester, as Lady Bug attractant.  It's bad news.  There have been a number of stores popping up around Gloucester and their main business and income come from selling these synthetic drugs.  It's serious money for these purveyors.  Check out the article and keep an eye out for anything unusual with your children or loved ones. 

Understanding Meta Data

We have added this file on Meta Data so that people who are reading the present posts understand what it is we are asking for when we say we are asking for meta data on files.  Meta data can say a lot or say nothing at all.  The meta data can seriously put reports into question or they may just add to confusion.   There are plenty of reasons to look at the meta data of a document.  It can be used as evidence in a court.  It's also very difficult to alter meta data without creating new meta data of altering the previous data.  Meta data is on every computer everywhere.  We will go into further detail about all this in a later article. 

Gloucester County FOIA Requests For Information, Some Now Coming In

We are now starting to get some of the information we have requested.  Christi Lewis has been a tremendous help from the begging and we at least want to point out her professionalism and note that she has been on the ball since the start on helping us get the information we have been seeking.  The Gloucester County Sheriff's department has already kicked in some information that is also very helpful.  I have to make the statement, even though I am pointing out serious flaws in the system, and flaws in this starting case, not everyone should be viewed as suspicious.  Gloucester County does have a number of truly dedicated professionals working for us. We, like everyone else, have some bad apples in the mix and can not stand by and allow injustice to prevail.



  

Gloucester County Producing False And Illegal Search Warrants?

Gloucester County Producing False And Illegal Search Warrants?

Above is a jpg image of a search warrant issued here in Gloucester County. This is the search warrant that has been in discussion in earlier parts of this overall story. On the surface, it may look valid, but when you start really studying all it's components and asking a lot of questions, you start to realize that there is something very wrong here. At least it is our opinion that something horribly wrong exists.

Let's start breaking this document down and asking questions shall we? If you look at the bottom of this document, you will see that it is signed by one Gloria Owens who is a Gloucester County court clerk. She signed this document and marked the box Judge. Gloria Owens is not a judge. She is not a Magistrate. She is a clerk. Okay, in fairness, she has the right to sign this document and mark it for a judge if she was in contact with a judge and was signing it in his place, which would require her to mark it as such but was never done. See VA Code Ann 19.2-56 below. Information we have obtained states that Gloria Owens is the usual go to person in the county whenever a fast form is needed for whatever reason. Now we have no way to confirm this, it's what has been told to us from inside the Sheriff's office.

Va code ann 19.2 56

View more documents from Chuck Thompson

Now let's look at the date and time this was executed. Well all we have here is a date, no time. A time stamp is required by law to be on this document, however, it will not invalidate evidence and or property seized during the search as long as Gloucester County can show the time that this document was created. The search took place on May 4^th, 2010. One day after this document was “supposedly” created. We strongly emphasis supposedly. Yet this document does not contain a valid file number. If it was created one day in advance of a search, this document should have a valid file number. It's rather shoddy and shady that this document does not contain a file number seeing as Gloucester had 24 hours advanced preparations.

Now let's look at the markings or numbers that are placed in the file number box. 10.45. Could this possibly be a date? 2010, 4^th day of May? This search as already stated took place on May 4^th, 2010. So it is very feasible that 10.45 means just that. Now opinion is that the real date that this document was in fact created is May 4^th, 2010 and after the search began. Or in other words, while an illegal raid was being conducted against those this search warrant has been issued. This is why I have asked for the meta data files on the creation of this document. You can not alter the meta data on a computer without creating a major boot record of such. Again, more reason why Gloucester County really wants to ignore my requests for information? It's better to take a hit for non compliance than to offer up evidence that may just incriminate a number of people? The opinion is that everything had to be created after the illegal raid began to cover the tracks of those guilty parties to the raid.

Ah, and I am just warming up here to. Now let's look at the affiant section of the search warrant. The signature on here to the best of our understanding is Steve Baranek of Animal Control. He is the second of two affiant's. His affidavit is in place of the first affidavit where by law, the original affiant does not have to be disclosed to the defendant, however, burden of proof as to why the original affiant is hidden is on Gloucester County. There must be a certain amount of fear of retribution from the defendant against the original affiant in order to hide said evidence.

Now here is what I am not supposed to know. The original affiant was under the employ of Peninsula Heating and Air,or PHA at the time. Evidence produced by this PHA employee that was supposedly used to create this search warrant comes into very deep questioning. I have asked for all evidence here and have not received it. It is believed that the PHA employee, through illegally trespassing into areas of a house where he was assigned to work, took photographs on what he considered to be either questionable and or possibly illegal evidence of animal neglect.

Now when it comes to accepting evidence and compiling an affidavit for the purposes of issuing a search warrant, the affiant must be deemed reliable. If the PHA employee was criminally trespassing into areas of a house he had no right to access, can his testament be considered reliable? Gaining evidence via committing an illegal act does not prove reliability.

Va code ann 19.2 59

View more documents from Chuck Thompson.

That would invalidate the PHA employee affidavit. Now what about Steve Baranek's affidavit? Well that was created to protect the original affiant. So now that would make Steve Baranek's affidavit null and void making the search warrant null and void. Problem is, the search took place. These are not the only areas in question. There isn't an area on this search warrant I can't question and show some serious flaws in. I mean this thing is loaded with problems in my opinion. However, I am not going to give everything I know away right now as I am still waiting on evidence from Gloucester County and know that there are many people in the county who are in fact reading this. Plus inside information from the Sheriff's deputy says that all the evidence of this case have been destroyed so it's going to be hard for Gloucester County to produce what we are looking for. This he was told by Sheriff Gentry. After ample time, I'm still going to pick this document clean and show even worse issues than I have put up yet.

So far we are looking at a very sloppy search warrant that is at the very least, highly questionable and County officials that are ignoring requests for information to clarify areas of this document. How much worse can it get? You have no idea.

At this point, if I have your attention, I would strongly suggest that you start following all the updates on this site as this does not even begin to scratch the surface of everything coming. I have surprises everywhere and on every story coming up that are more shocking than the last.

Gloucester Officials Ignore Freedom Of Information Requests.

Gloucester Officials Ignore Freedom Of Information Requests.

Since March of this year, 2012, we have been filing with Gloucester County, requests for information under the Freedom Of Information Act. To date, we are being ignored and are now on our third request for the same information. The information being sought regards a search warrant that was issued in Gloucester County back during the month of May of 2010. Here is a jpg image of the search warrant as given to the defendant. What is also interesting is that the Daily Press on Sunday, April 29^th did a story on an Author Stonewalled On Court Records Request in the Crime and Legal Issues Notebook section of the paper.  This story is reprinted here under the fair use doctrine.

(Click Image To Enlarge)

To be 100% fair. Our first request was in writing at the Gloucester County courthouse with the Gloucester County clerks office. We requested the affiant affidavit because the defendants state they never received this with the copy of the search warrant. If this is true, the search warrant was invalid and the search is considered an illegal raid. Please see VA Code Ann 19.2-56 below. Also requested was any and all calendar schedules for and or showing any scheduling of the search on the search warrant in question. The written request was for a search warrant File Number 10.45. I knew that the search warrant file number was not valid but this is what Gloucester County had written in the File Number section of the search warrant. I wanted a letter showing that this file number was invalid.

By the way, I had to hand write the request and was not given the usual form for this request. The filing of this request was witnessed. On the date this request was filed, one of the clerks who only had a couple of minutes to look up information before leaving told me that there were 3 pages of affiant information and two affiant's. I already knew this but was not sharing that part of the information. I was later told that the county had 10 days to respond to this request and asked how I wanted it sent. I requested that the information be sent via US mail. 

Va code ann 19.2 56

View more documents from Chuck Thompson

Va code ann 19.2 55

View more documents from Chuck Thompson

VA Code 19.2-55

Va code ann 19.2 59

View more documents from Chuck Thompson

VA Code 19.2-59

After 5 days of the written request, I did get a phone call from the Gloucester County clerks office where this request was made. I have a time and date stamped recording of the phone call along with the message that was left. The message was to call the clerks office and the phone number to the clerks office. I wanted a letter so I did not call back.

After 14 days had passed, allowing for extra days for mail delivery, I had no response on this request at all other than that one phone call. So then I went on line and filed the FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) form at the Gloucester County web site. The form if filled out on line will not retain the information typed in there for the requested information. It boots that part out. So I had to create my own form using theirs. I sent it via email that gives a digital time and date stamp, to the person listed as the main contact for these forms. Christi Lewis is the Gloucester County contact person. I filed this pretty late at night and it was received and responded to on April , 2012. Here is a jpg of the email I received. .

And Who Received This Copy?

Here is a copy of the form I sent requesting said information.

County of Gloucester

Request for Public Records Pursuant to the

Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

In order for the County of Gloucester to accurately process your request for public records under

FOIA, please provide the following information to help us assist you.

Date of Request: _April 11th__________________ Time of Request: ___N/A____________

Person Submitting Request:

__Chuck_Thompson____________________________________________________

Mailing Address: Removed for privacy.

______________________________________________________________________________

City Hayes State VA Zip Code 23072

Telephone Number(s) for Contact: Removed for privacy._ ____________

 I understand that I will be charged for copying costs and may be assessed for the administrative time

utilized to search for the documents or data requested. A current schedule of costs is available upon

request. (Agreed)

 I request that all charges for supplying the records I have requested be estimated in advance. I also

understand that if charges are expected to exceed $200, I will be required to pay estimated charges in

advance. (Agreed)

Description of Public Records Requested:

Any and all affiant information in regards to a search warrant, file number 10:45 signed by one Gloria

Owens. Said search warrant is against one (Removed for Privacy) dated May 3rd, 2010 in regards to a criminal

case. Any and all documentation regarding any and all evidence of each affiant of which there are two,

Any and all evidence to include any and all digital and or other forms of photography, any and all

video, and any and all voice recordings. Any and all calendar schedules of advance notice for said

search to take place whether from Gloucester County Sheriff's office, Animal Control and or from any

said court.

Any and all meta data and or meta tags showing date of creation in the county court computer systems,

date of creation, time of creation and by whom created and in what office for said search warrant.

Said request is made this 11th day of April, 2012 in the County of Gloucester and is filed via email to

the address listed below to one clewis@gloucesterva.info . Said request is the second request made for

said information with a waiting period of over 12 days with no response. 1st request was made at the

Gloucester County Court house and was in writing at said location and dated March 23rd, 2012.

RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO:

Freedom of Information Compliance Officer

Gloucester County Department of Community Education

P.O. Box 1306, Gloucester, VA 23061

Telephone (804) 693-5730 Fax: (804) 693-0509 Email: clewis@gloucesterva.info

RECEIVING DEPARTMENT/OFFICE

Person & Department Receiving Request: ___________________________________________

Request Received: ___ In Person ___ By Phone ___ In Writing (includes e-mail & attach to form)

FOIA OFFICER USE ONLY

Date Request Received by FOIA Office: ________________

Response Type: ___ Granted ___ Partial ___ Denied ___ Extension Requested & Date:

__________

Response Sent/Provided Date: _____________________

Specific Information Provided: _____________________

Specific Charges and Payment: _____________________ Revised 9.08

As of today, May 1^st, 2012, I have now filed a 3^rd request for this same information. 

County of Gloucester

Request for Public Records Pursuant to the

Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

In order for the County of Gloucester to accurately process your request for public records under

FOIA, please provide the following information to help us assist you.

Date of Request: _May 1^st, 2012 (Third Request)________________ Time of Request: ___N/A____________

Person Submitting Request:

__Chuck_Thompson____________________________________________________

Mailing Address: _

______________________________________________________________________________

City Hayes State VA Zip Code 23072

Telephone Number(s) for Contact: _ _____________

 I understand that I will be charged for copying costs and may be assessed for the administrative time

utilized to search for the documents or data requested. A current schedule of costs is available upon

request. (Agreed)

 I request that all charges for supplying the records I have requested be estimated in advance. I also

understand that if charges are expected to exceed $200, I will be required to pay estimated charges in

advance. (Agreed)

Description of Public Records Requested:

Any and all affiant information in regards to a search warrant, file number 10:45 signed by one Gloria

Owens. Said search warrant is against one dated May 3

rd

, 2010 in regards to a criminal

case. Any and all documentation regarding any and all evidence of each affiant of which there are two,

Any and all evidence to include any and all digital and or other forms of photography, any and all

video, and any and all voice recordings. Any and all calendar schedules of advance notice for said

search to take place whether from Gloucester County Sheriff's office, Animal Control and or from any

said court.

Any and all meta data and or meta tags showing date of creation in the county court computer systems,

date of creation, time of creation and by whom created and in what office for said search warrant.

Said request is made this 11

th

day of April, 2012 in the County of Gloucester and is filed via email to

the address listed below to one clewis@gloucesterva.info . Said request is the second request made for

said information with a waiting period of over 12 days with no response. 1

st

request was made at the

Gloucester County Court house and was in writing at said location and dated March 23

rd

, 2012.

This is a third request for the above information and is dated May 1^st, 2012. To date all requests have been ignored.

RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO:

Freedom of Information Compliance Officer

Gloucester County Department of Community Education

P.O. Box 1306, Gloucester, VA 23061

Telephone (804) 693-5730 Fax: (804) 693-0509 Email: clewis@gloucesterva.info

RECEIVING DEPARTMENT/OFFICE

Person & Department Receiving Request: ___________________________________________

Request Received: ___ In Person ___ By Phone ___ In Writing (includes e-mail & attach to form)

FOIA OFFICER USE ONLYDate Request Received by FOIA Office: ________________

Response Type: ___ Granted ___ Partial ___ Denied ___ Extension Requested & Date:

__________

Response Sent/Provided Date: _____________________

Specific Information Provided: _____________________

Specific Charges and Payment: _____________________ Revised 9.08

The second request was given 12 days for a response along with extra days for last minute mailings. In other words, I gave Gloucester County the benefit of the doubt. This was not ignored by one party in Gloucester County, but instead it has been ignored by multiple parties in Gloucester County as evidenced by Christi Lewis' email to me on who she sent my requests to. One has to assume at this point that maybe there is something to hide here? In upcoming stories on this case, we will show that there is in fact a lot to hide, in our opinion. We have a lot of questions and now we are producing a lot more questions and so should you. Our next article is going to deal with the actual search warrant itself and we are going to go over the Virginia laws as it applies to search warrants and in particular this search warrant. We think you will agree with our opinion that the search warrant issued was totally false, misleading and illegal. See our story, Gloucester County Producing False And Illegal Search Warrants?

A Grand Conspiracy In Gloucester County Law Enforcement and The Courts?

A Grand Conspiracy In Gloucester County Law Enforcement and The Courts?

Today we are kicking off what will become a very long story told over the upcoming months with more twists and turns than you could ever imagine. We have been and will continue to invite members of the press and other law enforcement agencies to follow these stories as they are all intertwined together and will prove to shake the very foundations of Gloucester County and eventually, our nation. This is a story that we have been working on for the past two years and have interviewed numerous people, put together a huge database of information and evidence to include pictures, court documents, recordings, videos, testimony, digital data and more. We have hundreds of pages that we will be presenting and it is just way to much to cover in one or several articles.

Some of what will be presented can only be stated as opinion because we are being blocked from receiving information that may or may not say otherwise. So it is only fair to report on what the opinions are and support those opinions with as much fact as we have on hand. Other areas will be based on fact of evidence that is undeniable. We have also been putting together facts of Virginia law to show we are not making anything up at any time nor are we spouting opinion of our own interpretations of the law.

We will do everything in our power to be as fair as possible as much as possible in bringing you these stories. At the present moment, it is our opinion that there is in fact a grand conspiracy here in Gloucester County with our law enforcement and in our court system to manipulate and to deceive the public and we have had inside input on such. A deputy inside the Gloucester County Sheriff's office has come forward and given deep detailed information on where to look and what to look for in order to present the stories along with what transpired in given events that we will be bringing you. Now with all of this said, we will now present you with our first case and the first section of the story on this case that begins after this opening. Please see Gloucester Officials Ignore Freedom Of Information Requests.