POLICE CHIEF DENNIS BURNS destroyed evidence and falsified audio/video recordings in order to incriminate a citizen of a crime.
On March 15, 2008 Palo Alto Police Officer Kelly Burger fired unlawfully shot me and shocked me with his taser gun for over twenty seconds. Four Audio/video recordings and two taser gun data ports captured the incident. Had the original recordings been provided to the district attorney Officer Burger would have been arrested for false arrest, unlawful assault and battery and excessive force. Tony Ciampi- CLICK HERE to see Chief Burns' confronted with evidence.
Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns conspired with his subordinate officers to edit, falsify and destroy evidence, (including audio/video recordings), in order to conceal Burger's crimes while wrongfully incriminating Ciampi of a crime, hence the reason why Ofc. Burger with the knowledge and support of Chief Burns destroyed two of the four taser probes without ever documenting them into evidence.
Chief Burns has had over three years to refute the allegations laid out on this website but he refuses to do so. Why? Why wouldn't he want to refute these allegations?
ONE: Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns violated department policy and Penal Code 1054 when he refused to provide the taser guns’ activation data to the Santa Clara County District Attorney and Ciampi’s criminal defense attorney. Chief Burns actually lied directly to the media regarding the transfer of this evidence four months after it should have been provided. (EXHIBIT 2) AND (PG. 7 OF EXHIBIT 1B)
It should be noted that this suppression of evidence was not limited to Police Chief Dennis Burns, but City Attorney Don Larkin also violated department policy and Penal Code 1054 by refusing to provide the taser gun activation data. Once forced to provide the data, it was not produced on the tamper proof PDF files format but on a paper document.
TWO: Police Chief Dennis Burns violated department policy when he took into personal possession Palo Alto Police Officers Manuel Temores’ and Kelly Burger’s taser guns and taser cameras for 10 days after he had been informed by a forensic expert that the videos had been tampered with. (EXHIBIT 3), (EXHIBIT 4A) AND (EXHIBIT 1A)
Department policy states that the evidence should have been immediately turned into property and over to the District Attorney.
I WONDER WHAT CHIEF BURNS DID TO EVIDENCE WHILE IT WAS IN HIS PERSONAL POSSESSION?
THREE: Dennis Burns violated department policy when he took into personal possession the computer hard drive that the taser videos and activation data was downloaded into instead of placing it into property. He then violated department policy a second time when he placed the hard drive back into use in “traffic” in order to overwrite the original videos and taser gun activation data. (EXHIBIT 4A) AND (EXHIBIT 1A)
FOUR: Palo Alto Police Chiefs Dennis Burns' and Lynne Johnson's statements are contradicted by their own officers' statements as well as the physical evidence. (EXHIBIT 4B)
FIVE: Chief Burns oversaw the destruction of two taser probes, a taser cartridge, taser wires and taser Anti Felon Identification Tags, (AFIDS), in violation of department policy and Penal Code 141 (b). Officer Burger confirmed with the medics at the scene of the incident that FOUR taser probes were fired from two separate taser guns. Two taser probes were fired from Burger’s taser gun and two taser probes were fired from Temores’ taser gun. A taser camera records at all times that the taser gun is activated and therefore will record any and all discharges of taser probes and electricity. Temores’ MAV camera was pointed in a direction in which it ostensibly recorded the entire incident as it was never turned off. Neither Temores’ Taser camera nor his MAV camera recorded Temores firing probes from his taser gun. (EXHIBIT 5)
Conclusion: The video footage of Temores firing taser probes has been removed from his taser video as well as his MAV video. Thus the reason for destroying the taser probes, cartridge, wires and AFIDS is to conceal the missing video footage of the second taser gun firing.
SIX: Easily the most verifiable piece of evidence that Police Chief Dennis Burns conspired with others to tamper with the taser guns are the falsified taser gun activation reports he submitted to federal court on two separate occasions; the second time as an attempt to cover up the first time. (EXHIBIT 6)
Federal Judge Lucy Koh demonstrated her motive to conceal the crimes of the Palo Alto Police by refusing to acknowledge this evidence. GO TO: http://judgelucykoh.weebly.com/
Andrew Hinz, (Taser International’s Representative), demonstrates his and Tasers complicity in the cover up stating to Federal Court in a Declaration that the taser guns and taser camera have not been tampered with knowing that Chief Burns submitted falsified taser gun activation data to the court.
SEVEN: Andrew Hinz of Taser International, (Chief Burns' Expert), stated in a Declaration under penalty of perjury to the Federal Court that two taser cameras sent to Taser International from the Palo Alto Police, (from Dennis Burns), were destroyed and that these two taser cameras were the cameras used to record the March 15, 2008 incident. (EXHIBIT 7)
EIGHT: Andrew Hinz of Taser International has stated that no tampering of the Taser guns or the Taser Camera's has occurred, yet despite doing their best efforts to cover up the tampering:
Santa Clara Crime Lab analyst Christopher Corpora verified that a minimum of 4 seconds of audio/video footage is missing from Temores' Taser Video. (EXHIBIT 8A)
Santa Clara Crime Lab analyst John Burke found that some of the individual frames of both taser videos were not in chronological order. (EXHIBIT 8B)
Santa Clara Crime Lab analyst Mario Soto Determined that the Hash Values used to authenticate electronic files did not match up verifying that the Taser Videos had been edited. (EXHIBIT 8C)
NINE: Chief Burns oversaw the destruction of the the MAV videos that were contained on the two tamper proof hard drives in violation of department policy. (EXHIBIT 8D)
TEN: When a MAV, (Mobile Audio Visual Recording System), records audio/video footage it imbeds a Watermark into the video in order to detect editing of copies. During the Civil Case Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns through his attorney Steven Sherman falsely stated to Federal Judges Patricia Trumbull, Paul Grewal and Lucy Koh that the watermark is proprietary software and would not provide copies of the MAV videos with the watermark. This was proven to be a Bold Face Lie. (EXHIBIT 8E)
ELEVEN: Police Chief Burns had his subordinate officers used a software program to unnecessarily remove the Watermark from the copies of the MAV videos he provided to the District Attorney and the courts. The software program that he used is not even a part of the MAV system's manufacturer's, Kustom Signal's, MAV system. (EXHIBIT 8F)
Chief Dennis Burns deliberately removed the Watermark from the copies of the MAV videos he provided to the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office and the courts in order to cover up the fact that the videos have been edited and falsified.
TWELVE: Chief Burns falsely stated to the Federal Judges through his attorneys that there is only one person in the entire police department capable of making copies of the MAV videos, (EXHIBIT 8G)
THIRTEEN: Warren Page of Kustom Signals went on record in a Declaration to the Federal Court that the MAV videos and the watermark had not been tampered with. This is a fraudulent declaration to cover up the fact that the MAV videos have been tampered with. Mr. Page cannot and refuses to refute the evidence which proves that his MAV system has been tampered with.
(EXHIBIT 8H and 8I)
FOURTEEN: In an attempt to cover up missing video footage on Burger’s taser video, Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns condoned the use of perjurious testimony by Ofc. Kelly Burger. (EXHIBIT 9A)
FIFTEEN: In order to explain why Temores' MAV video had no audio, Chief Burns and his subordinate officers came up with the bogus explanation that the battery to the microphone ran out of power acknowledging that the City has spent a lot of money on a device that does not work and apparently have done nothing to fix it. (EXHIBIT 9B)
SIXTEEN: Police Chief Dennis Burns oversaw the destruction of Officer April Wagner's Bicycle helmet in violation of Department Policy. (EXHIBIT 9C)
SEVENTEEN: In order to manipulate the public’s perception of Ciampi, Chief Burns and his subordinate officers come up with the bogus allegation to detain Ciampi by falsely accusing Ciampi was under the influence of drugs with absolutely no evidence to support such an allegation. (EXHIBIT 9D)
It should be noted that Officer Burger had falsely arrested Ciampi, however that portion of the audio recording was removed from the MAV recordings.
EIGHTEEN: In order to manipulate the public’s perception of Ciampi, Chief Burns attempts to vilify Ciampi by falsely stating that Ciampi was “leering at young children and their mother.” (EXHIBIT 9E)
NINETEEN: DA’s Dolores Carr and Jeff Rosen verify that they and their crime lab aided and abetted Dennis Burns’ use of falsified videos by refusing to analyze the watermark. Crime Lab analyst Christopher Corpora contacted Kustom Signals, the manufacturer of the MAV system in order to obtain information on how to authenticate the videos. Mr. Corpora failed to obtain the software to analyze the watermark. (EXHIBITS 8H AND 8I)
TWENTY: Andrew Hinz of Taser International claims that the taser had no effect upon Ciampi. However the physical evidence contradicts his bogus assertions revealing that his expert report is fraudulent. Click Here To See "Shocked" Exhibit.
TWENTY-ONE: Burns and the IPA Michael Gennaco worked closely in covering up the crimes of Burns and his subordinate Officers. Mr. Gennaco is essentially Burns’ personal investigator and therefore everything that Mr. Gennaco has put forward in his report is supported by Chief Burns. To view Gennaco's acts which aided and abetted Burns' crimes, CLICK HERE:
TWENTY-TWO: To see how the Santa Clara District Attorney's Office covered up the crimes of the Palo Alto Police, CLICK HERE:
TWENTY-THREE: You're probably asking yourself how the Palo Alto Police got away with the crimes they committed. They called in favors which replaced Judge Jeremy Fogel with Judge Lucy Koh in presiding over the civil case. Judge Koh terminated the case by ruling against the Facts and the Law. CLICK HERE to see how Judge Koh and her friends worked it all out.