VIRGINITY TESTING - A virginity test is the practice and process of determining whether a female person is a virgin, i.e., whether she has never engaged in sexual intercourse. The test involves an inspection of a female's hymen, on the assumption that her hymen can only be torn as a result of sexual intercourse.
Keith Stoneman was a Sussex Police officer conspicuous by his absence in what is alleged to be a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving the crafting of evidence during an investigation into an a complaint of sexual assault and rape from the granddaughter of a prominent mason after an acrimonious split up following the calling off of an engagement around 2006.
Gordon Staker, Jo Pinyoun and James Hookway avoided interviewing or calling Keith Stoneman (a fellow police officer) as a witness because they knew that Mr Stoneman would be able to tell the jury (assuming that he would not lie on oath) that Nelson Kruschandl lived with the family for going on three years, where the claimant's mother had told the jury in this case that Mr Kruschandl had not lived with her, nor contributed to the running of the house - something we know to be a blatant lie from seeing credit card statements that were paid by the defendant, much of which was for food for the family.
Keith Stoneman knew that Mr Kruschandl had been charged and must have known that his evidence would have been helpful to the jury.
Judge Cedric Joseph told the jury that it did not matter that the mother of the claimant was unreliable on the stand as a witness where she was caught out lying, and that her daughter could be telling the truth, when it is more likely that the daughter and mother had to work together to fabricate this allegation, meaning that the daughter was coached - and her mother had to hide a piece of key evidence in her loft for that to work, the evidence being her work diary which apparently had details of her daughters menstruation cycle, a factor that Sussex police were keen to hide from the defence by failing to provide colour copies of the relevant pages of this key evidence.
The provision of monochrome photocopies of a poor quality is a trick used by Wealden District Council during appeals to the Secretary of State, involving Ian Kay, the son-in-law of prominent mason Bernard Best of Tyrian Lodge, South Street. Where we know that Sussex police worked with Wealden to deny justice to 12 Petitioners in 1997, and knowing about the shooting of James Ashley in 1998 that revealed just how corrupt this police force was/is, we are drawn to the irresistible conclusion that Wealden's officers were again influencing the police in the hope of gaining a conviction to get rid of the planning advocate who had become a thorn in their side, in winning appeals against this council where Ian Kay was one of the key planning officers in the corrupt mix.
Another problem with the case for the prosecution, and something that was hidden from the jury in what appears to be a deliberate series of acts on the part of Sussex police to hide the truth, is that the girl was intact at the time of her examination.
That such an abomination of a trial could take place in Her Majesty's British courts is shameful and a blight on the face of justice and fair play in United Nations SDG 16 terms where justice should be available to all in open and transparent fashion.
Why did this happen? It happened because this police force had been working with Wealden District Council to hide the history of a generating building in their area, where their officers had lied to two Inspectors for the Secretary of State in 1987 and 1997.
Lying on oath is a criminal offence, where those officers involved in the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice should have been prosecuted by Sussex police but that instead of that and the complaints of 11 other unrelated members of public in the petition in 1997, the police simply looked the other way - failing to interview a single complainant and a single suspect officer.
CRAFTING THE EVIDENCE
It is a simple matter for any investigation officer to craft the evidence so that the facts presented to a jury more or less guarantee a conviction.
In the case of sexual offences, David Blunkett made it even worse by introducing the Sexual Offence Act 2003, and Act of Parliament that reverses the burden of proof in sex case so that the accused goes into court guilty, instead of innocent until proven guilty, contrary to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Given that the court in this case failed to warn the jury about the danger of convicting a person on the say so of the accused without any supporting medical or other corroboration as to events, the Court cannot be held to have acted impartially. The Judge, Cedric Joseph, failed to grant an adjournment after the discovery of the work diary belonging to the girls mother, a psychiatric nurse, where incredibly, she'd hidden this vital evidence in her loft, and that may have been on the advice of the investigating officers.
That Keith Stoneman should be involved by failing to come forward and tell what he knew - in what is in effect a eugenics programme, tells us a bit about the character of this man. He is not alone of course, it takes more than one player to pull off the deception of a jury. But a police officer who fails to come to the aid of a member of the public with information that he knows would be useful, is committing a criminal act as per R v Bowden, another officer who failed in his duty to protect a member of the public. We wonder then if Mr Stoneman was ordered not to say anything?
Any move away from the Articles that came into being after the Second World War is a move toward a society that is elitist to the detriment of any race other than those favoured by the state. In the case of Adolf Hitler and his henchmen and women, also team players like Sussex police, Nazi Germany ended up murdering thousands of Jewish and Polish people in concentration camps like Auschwitz and Buchenwald that were specifically designed as death camps, also meant to eliminate any political opponents to their chancellor, who became a virtual God as a result.
That is a potential danger that lurks in every country that betrays their citizens human rights, in this case a right to be treated by the state honestly and the same as any other person. Sussex police though, is charged with being guilty of institutionalised discrimination, from the moment they backed up Wealden in helping that council to conceal the truth about the old generating building in Herstmonceux.
That is more or less identical behaviour to the shooting and killing of James Ashley in 1998, where Paul Whitehouse and his senior staff lied about what happened and were found out by the investigations of Kent and Hampshire police.
If Keith can live with himself at crucifying Nelson Kruschandl in this way, then good luck to him. If he cannot be honest in his professional life, how will he be in his personal life and relationships.
Officers of the court who act to craft evidence are part of what is wrong with the United Kingdom.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
Most Police forces are funded by their local authorities. Because of this they build up cosy relationships with local council officers, often belonging to the same masonic lodge. Additionally, the Police do not regard planning crime as a high priority and indeed very often do not understand the law sufficiently to realise a crime has been committed. It appears our Government has directed the Police accordingly. In any event our government declines to take action or to form a special planning crime unit to investigate deception and fraud, which is left to whistleblowers to fight, on the rare occasion a citizen is rubbed up the wrong way sufficiently to make a stand. Neither have the Government taken any steps to implement the recommendations of Lord Nolan and the Nolan Committee report on Standards in Public Life.
SUSSEX POLICE A - Z OF OFFICER INVESTIGATIONS
The above is just a few of a number of persons likely to be investigated in respect of certain cases brought against Wealden Action Group members, on the instigation of known Masons, councillors, or planning officers, many of which are themselves Masons or related to Masons.
Newspapers were keen to breach a Section 39 Order, by publishing details of the case in a manner that was likely to influence the jury. The newspapers who were guilty of such interference in the course of justice were: The Argus, Eastbourne Herald and Hailsham Gazette. There may be more.
Those in attendance at Court would know the identity of the girl and that a Not Guilty plea was been entered on all counts - and that since then the accused has maintained his innocence.
Armed with the name of the girl, newspaper reporters will be able to investigate the matter for themselves, for the purposes of balanced reporting at the appropriate time, but should take special care where allegations are already on the table with the police investigating the possibility that such reporting is likely to reveal the identity of the girl concerned to the general public.
It could be that the defendant deliberately set out to abuse a young girl, or he could be the victim in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could be the young girl feels the need for attention she is not getting at home, and this is a cry for help - or it could be a simple case of revenge for her mother having been jilted. Indeed, there are a number of possible explanations, but one thing is for sure, a forensic examination of the trial is bound to throw open numerous questions about the workings of our justice system.
Interestingly, it is believed that the girl was prone to accept and believe screen memories that were suggested to her as being real. We also understand that she had a wheelchair and crutches fixation, signs of an attention seeking disorder.
As for the players, what will happen to them? How will this affect their lives, their family and future, and what are the lessons to be learned?
If you have experienced of or been witness to any untoward attention, why not contact the Chief Constable:-
Police Headquarters, Malling House, Church Lane
East Sussex, BN7 2DZ
Tel. 0845 6070 999
Fax. 01273 404263
or the Crime Commissioner: Katy Bourne
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated 1997 - 2018. Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts. However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided. All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide. Horse Sanctuary UK Limited. All trademarks herby acknowledged.