On August 22, 2011, I had an incident with an angry idiotic black woman by the name of Stephanie Harris-Hodge who took up two parking spaces at BJ's. Officer Robert F. Tibor was dispatched to BJs when she called 911. Tibor was the lead investigator in the big firetruck rollover on Edgell Road, who concluded that it was a mechanical failure when the firetruck was going down a straightaway and it simply inexplicably rolled over and the driver of the firetruck subsequently retired.
Robert F. Tibor never rose the ranks for some reason. I'll have to check on all the complaints filed against him.
In the BJ's incident, once he learned I was involved, he carefully plotted a story line in his police report where he claimed that I damaged her car but he did he not submit any photographic evidence. This is tantamount of suppression of evidence.
I do have Robert F. Tibor to thank for allowing me to see how petty, vindictive and punitive the Framingham police really are. My experience with the courts has also opened my eyes on the blatant corruption in the courts Tibor is very familiar with the court security staff who are familiar with the DAs and judges. It's a good old boys club. While in court, we witnessed Tibor hobnobbing with DAs and court security.
In his police report,
he states in the first person,
Complainant's vehicle suffer minor scuff / imprint damage to paint under drivers side door lock. Damage appears to be under $250.00 at this time.
when in fact he has no idea whether any damage occured during the incident. He is taking her hearsay and stating in the first person as a police officer that I caused the damage. I was later charged with felony vandalism which says the damage was over $250.
He fabricates the evidence using words but fails to submit photographic evidence.
Page 74 During the trial ( Page 74 mostly) he stated:
I also observed some minor damage to the driver's door. The damage I saw, you'd have to look at it. It was -- I would consider it minute damage. Just around the locking area there was a small chip of paint missing and there was a small dimple, like I mean, you can actually get that by putting a little pressure on her car.
It was nothing -- I couldn't -- I'm not a mechanic. I would consider it nothing major. There was a faint outline of what appeared to be a shoe imprint, a partial outline. It looked like a sole. It was very light. You'd have to look real tight at that to observe it.
He fails to tell anyone that the only reason he claimed to observe a shoe imprint is because the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge told him I allegedly kicked the door (failure to provide exculpatory evidence (Brady vs Maryland) ).
When an alleged crime occured a long time ago (14 months ago in this case), a police under the spell of PMS (Police Memory Syndrone) will be able to magically fill in all the gaps in the prosecution's case. This was a classic shining example of PMS.
Robert F. Tibor's commentary on writing the police report (Page 78, line 13)
I had written it in as honest way and as fair as possible.
Robert F. Tibor claimed that the pictures he took with his camera were lost because the camera battery exploded and wiped the flash drive. (Page 80, line 10). Again, Robert F. Tibor failed to provide any evidence of this claim.
Robert F. Tibor had ample opportunity over the course of a year to take a picture of the damage that he testified about, The complaint Stephanie Harris-Hodge works at WalMart in Framingham and Robert F. Tibor drives around Framingham all the time. Robert F. Tibor did however routinely show up in court a total of five times over the period of this case (getting paid $45 an hour, four hours minimum each time).
Robert F. Tibor refuses to acknowledge that the picture I had of her car was hers. He states ...(Page 86, line 20)
I have no need to read the license plate, sir,
Refusing to read the license plate is denying me exculpatory evidence (Brady vs Maryland) .
When I ask Robert F. Tibor to draw a picture, he states (Page 87, line 17)
I'm not an artist
The judge David W. Cunis kicks in and makes his very provocative statement.
Sir, it's been described. It's been -- we've gone out. We've seen the vehicle. We've described the damage. He's described the damage. Mrs. Harris has described the damage. I don't think we need to draw pictures of it now at this point. I get -- I get -- understand. I have a clear understanding of the damage of the vehicle and what was seen and what happened, so next question.
Robert F. Tibor states that there is only one scratch on the door (Page 91, line 14). In fact, there were about 40-50 scratches around her door lock. I have photographic proof. My photos can be compared to her car door (on the assumption that she has not repainted the door).
Robert F. Tibor testifies to me about the damage (Page 95, line 7)
What I would consider a minor amount of damage. Someone else might not. As I said, I observed what appeared to be a foot impression from a sole. It was really light, light onto the paint. There was a small dimple and it looks like there was a small scratch that the paint was gone and you could see the base color. Now that was all concentrated around the door lock where the victim described.
The judge David W. Cunis once again clearly understands the damage description (Page 99, line 12)
He has described the damage several times over now. I get -- I get his testimony about the damage.
On Page 98, line 7 conflicts with Page 99, line 23.
Robert F. Tibor testifies that this event might have been kept out
of the system but only if I talked to him. So, basically, the officer
is saying that had I talked to him he would not charge me with
felony vandalism and misdemeanor assault. (Page 98, line 23)
He testifies that the date this alleged damage comes solely from her. He has no independent knowledge that any damage occured in the incident but fails to state that point (failure to provide exculpatory evidence (Brady vs Maryland) ).
The goal of the Framingham police department is to label me as a career criminal or habitual offender . So far, I have been convicted twice for assault. Once in 2007 for touching a police officer , and in 2012 for allegedly frightening an idiotic woman in a parking lot at BJs.
This incident is just another case where the Framingham police are trying to supress my free speech in roundabout and devious ways.
Failure to provide exculpatory evidence
One time, he was the one to notify the court that Stephane Harris-Hodge would not show up so that the case could be delayed again.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
65 Delmar Avenue Framingham, MA 01701 508-877-5541 email@example.com January 6, 2013 Framingham Police 1 William Welch Way Framingham, MA 01702 Attn: Steven B. Carl firstname.lastname@example.org Dear sir, I am interested in getting a copy of every complaint ever filed against Robert F. Tibor during his employment with the Framingham police. Can you give me some idea of how many complaints there are and how much it might cost me? If you want me to send you a snail mail version of this request, ask and you shall receive. Sincerely yours, Harold J. Wolfe
|Send comments to: email@example.com|