Letters Associated with 11/17/06CountyAttyT_B_ -conversation-deception-
[pending…these are cool…you don’t have to trust me…you can read them in the next day or two!!]
The letters leading up to this discussion and her letter after the discussion are pending (finding them); but this overall response letter tells you pretty much the whole story anyway.
OH…OH…except for one major addition…since then I spoke with an expert in A/V footage…
In addition to the many ways to provide audio only that I ‘uneducatedly’ provided and that I know work…I was given two more ways by the expert:
1) It is simple to simply ‘bubble-out’ (”As seen on TV!”) any data practices protected inmate faces and let the video/audio run while copying it.
2) It is simple to ‘black out’ the screen entirely while letting the footage play and this capture the audio only.
This is not a highly sophisticated capability; it’s pretty standard; the odds that the County Jail system can’t do this as well as the other four methods to provide audio without compromising data practices protections…
Of course, as I stated in my letter to County Atty T_B_, it’s clear that their are less than motivated to provide all that is available and all that they are capable of providing…gee…does anyone else wonder why?!
——–To This Letter Below…I Received No Reply——– ——–This Is ‘Their’ Common Response To Logic——–
December 22, 2006
Ms. T_B_ Sheriff P_M Sr. Asst. County Attorney Inspector T_M_ Office of the County Attorney Lt. C_O_ Government Center Sgt. B_E_ City, ST 00000 Lt. D_J_, Sgt S_L County Sheriff’s Office
Subject: On Being Tortured and Denied Critical and Rightful Evidence Thereof
Dear Ms. T_B_ et al:
The content of your recent response is almost wholly without merit. Allow me to explain:
On Friday, November 17, 2006, after being directed to you by K____ (speaking for Inspector T_M_ I think) of the County Sheriff’s Office, I politely asked the receptionist on your floor if you might happen to be available. After speaking with you briefly she asked me what the subject matter was. I told her that I had a “Data Practices concern,” which she relayed to you. She then told me that you would be out shortly. While I did not have an appointment the decision to meet was entirely within your discretion and you chose to do so. Furthermore, given that the broad context of virtually all my discussions with County since June 9, 2006, is that of having been tortured by ADC staff and leadership, and denied critical and rightful evidence of that torture, it strikes me that a 3 ½ minute interruption of your time is not too much to have asked. For electing to meet with me briefly, thank you.
While explaining that I was giving you a copy of my response to Lt. D_J_’s letter informing me that he would not give me the data requested (“I regret to inform you that I cannot provide the data you requested…” per Lt. D_J_’s letter dated November 14), you jumped in to explain that you didn’t think that that was what the answer was. When I first replied that in fact the letter did convey that I wasn’t being given anything (see above), you again jumped in and replied that “he can’t get what you are asking for and you are not entitled to what you are asking for.”
In response to your blunt (and errant) reply, I then explained, as stated in my November 2nd letter, that the ‘no video’ idea/accommodation was to try to simplify and shorten for Lt. D_J_ et al the effort associated with data practices concerns while providing me my rightful data. All I have ever wanted, quite simply, is “a full, truthful, and complete copy” of the 3+ hours of torture and hell that I was subjected to, and endured, plus the surrounding footage of the abhorrent conduct by the men and women you appear to be trying to protect by aiding through misdirected legal advice the efforts to deny me the data I have requested and to which I have legal right.
You then explained that you thought that there is a dispute regarding whether I have real and accurate information, and that it is your (collective I presume) position that I do, and that you have given me all that you are capable of giving me or that you are legally entitled to give me. I then explained that IAD has told me that there is audio in the raw footage that is not on the recordings I have received. You then argued that, “It is not possible, as Mr. D_J_ explained to [me] to separate the audio from the video.”
This is a good point to start cutting through to things which are true as opposed to those which are not:
1) As in our discussion, you claim in your December 1st letter that, “…there is no way to separate the audio from video…” [emphasis added]. There are at least four very simple ways to create audio separate from video from the ADC surveillance recordings:
a. After a 3-4 minute discussion describing what I needed to a Circuit City employee, for $50.00 I bought a little device from ADS Tech that works with Nero Audio software (extremely common). I played one of Sheriff’s P_M_’s CD’s of me being tortured, laughed at, ignored, neglected, mocked, etc., on my inexpensive Computer Renaissance desktop pc with the ADS Tech device plugged into the audio output. I also plugged the ADS Tech device into a UBS port (also extremely common these days) on my laptop. This extremely simple arrangement (10 minutes to figure it out) readily resulted in the Nero software on my laptop capturing the audio output only from the Sheriff’s CD as it played. I have saved the .wav files and am able to listen to them without viewing any video whatsoever and can provide copies to anyone who wants one, and without any concern that they will see any inmates whatsoever. The sound quality is excellent and enabled me to pick up sound that I couldn’t hear as clearly from the original Sheriff CDs, plus the .wav files are far easier to work with for things like repeating segments to hear what’s being said (truly horrible stuff in this instance), transcribing, etc. These sound files (.wav) with Nero Audio software also provide graphic representations of sound files and clearly show that noises like door slams take only a fraction of a second and simply cannot cover over multiple completely missing vocalizations lasting several seconds as has been claimed. This method of creating voice only files truly could not have been easier, and I am not all that great with tech stuff.
b. I am quite confident that many if not all of the PC’s attached to the ADC surveillance system have audio output ports that would readily accommodate the ADS Tech device or some other audio recording device that the ADC or IAD has at its disposal. The ADC might be in the dark ages relative to the humane treatment of humans, but from an information technology perspective, they’re at least in the final decade of the 20th century, and have a well demonstrated ability to manipulate data. My many simple requests for months only requires that your ability to manipulate data be used to provide the full and complete truth as opposed to covering it up.
c. In the same way that Sergeant B_E_ and I could listen to the audio during the playing of some of the footage in his office and clearly hear it, even with eyes closed (thus separating audio out from video), a simple audio recording device placed near the speakers would pick up the audio as the footage played. As opposed to there being “no way to separate the audio from the video” in actuality under this method, as with the two above, there actually is no way to avoid separating the audio from the video. Neither the receiver hooked into only an audio output jack nor a microphone sitting close to a speaker have the capability to record video.
d. And then there is the wholly non-technical method of simply manually transcribing my verbalizations and those of the respondents to them. I discussed this with Lt. D_J_ prior to the writing of your response, but apparently he either didn’t mention it to you or you commiserated with one another and decided to ignore the idea. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. It is a relatively sound and easy to do means to provide my data. To be sure, the written word may not be as powerful as the actual audio from an emotional impact point of view, but it’s better than nothing. On this, I speak from experience. Regarding my missing data, I have nothing. Transcriptions would be better.
2) With simple .wav files to work with there are no video-based data practices concerns to wrestle with. Eliminating the very, very, very few last names uttered to avoid identification is as simple as selecting the very, very, very few fraction of a second sound segments and muting sound for those fractions of seconds. I get all the data to which I am entitled; you get to protect private data about others. By the way, there wasn’t all that much attention paid to doing this per the video/audio footage that I did receive (details below), but that’s ADC’s call, not mine.
3) I’m sure there are other methods to honor my simple request, but what’s the point…it’s obviously simple for anyone motivated to do what I have requested ad nauseam. And there’s the rub. Sheriff P_M_ et al, the ADC, IAD, and you, are painfully and obviously not motivated to provide appropriate responses to my simple requests. It is absolutely not the case that “you have given me all that you are capable of giving me”. This lie has been going on for five months now.
a. I must admit that I am at a bit of a loss here. Never have I found myself mixed up in such ongoing disregard for the truth (and the law I think) as I have been since first dealing with law enforcement personnel on June 9th. The behavior of law enforcement relative to law enforcement is mind-boggling, antithetical, and very disturbing. The behavior of the surrounding ‘machinery’, such as legal advisors, is far too often (there have been a few exceptions) equally off-putting, uncooperative, unfair, deceptive, untruthful, etc.
b. Please keep in mind, I am the victim, not the perpetrator, of horrible criminal behavior, and instead of being aided by law enforcement I am continually stymied by it. This is a picture more ugly than I could have ever dreamed.
4) In your letter to me you described my most recent letter to Lt. D_J_ as, “a request which in part appears to duplicate or expand upon…previous requests.” A few paragraphs later you explained that, “…once a government agency has disclosed all private data about an individual to him, the agency need not make further disclosures for six months unless new data is created.”
a. Your response both acknowledges a key component of my request and then completely ignores it. The “expand upon” elements requested are all in regard to new data created since my original request. These new data are completely fair game for the additional requests. Please honor, as stated in my letter, the additional requests made for my private data; the stuff which you both acknowledged and ignored, along with my requests for “a full, truthful, and complete copy” of the original data requested, now about five times or so. Per the 10 day response expectation, your client is way past due and my penchant for patience has been stretched pretty thin. (Note: I have received the audio recordings of my telephone calls.)
5) I truly don’t know whether I have filed a complaint with the FBI. What I did do is give them evidence of horrible criminal behavior of which I was the victim. Isn’t that what I’m supposed to do?
6) At the recommendation and strong urging (because of the distrust I had regarding IAD ‘independence’) of M_E_, County Investigator, I did file a complaint with IAD. Sergeant B_E_ did not as you say, “…clear his schedule to allow [me] to view the unedited recordings…” He described to me that taking time to do this is his job, as an internal affairs investigator. We compared it to similar sitting and waiting responsibilities he has had in other positions and laughed about it. When I arrived at about 9:00 am he explained that he wanted to review some of the footage with me, and that he had a meeting he would have to go to at around noon, so that if it took longer we would get together again. We worked until noon or a little after if I remember correctly. This meeting was not terminated even close to “very shortly” into it at all.
7) Neither was it unproductive. On the contrary, it was highly productive. Again, allow me to explain:
a. Within the first few minutes of footage it was absolutely clear that the footage being shown to me by Sergeant B_E_ was also not representative of what actually happened. Significant verbalizations that I know very clearly that I and ADC personnel made in the sallyport were not there in what was described to me as true, raw footage. The details have been provided to IAD. The ‘productive’ element here is that this tells me that either: a) IAD is operating in cahoots with ADC, or, b) ADC was able to and did mutilate, alter, tamper with, etc., the raw footage and has IAD fooled in the same way they tried to fool me.
b. By the end of the not in the least “very short” three hours or so meeting that was terminated because of Sergeant B_E_’s noonish appointment multiple additional ‘productive’ facts emerged. There were many, many more instances of my and ADC staff’s actual verbalizations from within the jail that were not showing up in the footage being shown to me. By explaining this emphatically to Sergeant B_E_ he was motivated to review things further at some point after our meeting ended and explained to me when we next met that he had ‘found’ ‘missing verbalizations’. These ‘found’ utterances by me and the ADC respondents occurred as I called many times for a photographer and then finally a nurse through the intercom before the 3:45 pm interaction and then again called for the nurse many times during the hour or so before the 6:45 pm interaction. There are many additional utterances by me, and by me with various ADC respondents, that occurred throughout the time I was being tortured, deliberately ignored, laughed at, mocked and worse, throughout the painful ordeal in the restraint chair. Sergeant B_E_ suggests that we didn’t hear them together because we skipped around and missed them all. I find this explanation dubious based on the timeframes that we viewed together where I am certain there were verbalizations by me and ADC respondents, and by the sheer odds against missing so many of the verbalizations I know I made just because we skipped around a little. The odds against this are simply too great. More to the point, it doesn’t really matter. The verbalizations are admittedly in his footage, whether raw and real and true or tampered with, and they are not in mine.
c. There are, as Sgt. B_E_ pointed out and as you are aware, verbalizations when they originally occurred, and where they should be in the raw footage, but not in the CD’s given me, while there were no inmates in the hallway that I was in and thus they occurred while there was no data practices concern warranting covering them up through deletions, mutings, cutting and pastings, or any other such distortions. I supposedly have continuous running frame-to-frame footage, time-stamped to the thousandths of seconds, for which there is no excuse for eliminating by whatever means my and ADC respondents’ verbalizations. I already have the video, so there is no reason for critical audio to be missing. Your argument holds no water.
d. Furthermore:
i. The average amount of time that inmates were in the hallway and even remotely identifiable is about 10 seconds.
ii. This is from 13 instances of Inmates in Hallway I noted from my first 12 hours.
iii. Therefore, finally, the gaps in video of anywhere from 1 ½ to 8 ½ minutes are not credible in terms of there being inmates in the hallway for that long and therefore data practices issues interfering with providing me my data. I noted nine of these overly long gaps in the video provided. Clearly some other reason besides data practices concerns is responsible for such long gaps between segments given the realities of how long inmates are in the hallway and identifiable. I’m guessing one obvious motive would be to cover up bad behavior by ADC staff, multiple vocalizations by me along with associated ADC responses, all indicative of being lied to, ignored, mistreated, and of course the over-riding need to cover up critical evidence that supports my knowledge of the crimes that happened.
e. Lastly, I am quite sure there are instances where footage is in the video I did receive that are inconsistent with the timing of those segments relative to what actually happened. This can be easily verified by me simply reviewing untampered with raw footage or a true and accurate representation of it.
Sincerely hoping for nothing simpler than the simple truth,
M_______ xxx.xxx.xx48
