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.

911 Dispatcher Liability?

911 Dispatcher Liability?

As we have shown in our last article, the testimony from Holli M Cohoon falls way short and inaccurate. There are legal liabilities for giving false and misleading testimony in a court of law, especially when said testimony proves to harm any person against whom the false testimony was given. Holli may just find herself working the rest of her life to pay restitution for the harm caused, and reporting and accounting for every dollar she earns every month.

Arrangements have been made to forgive any and all potential damages in exchange for her true and accurate testimony. This is a very short time offer as her testimony isn't really needed. She has two weeks from today's date to come forward. After the two week period, all bets are off.

The Castle Doctrine

The Castle Doctrine

The above is a direct link to the Castle Doctrine stated in the last story.  Thought you should know and understand every aspect we are talking about in this case.  

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.