Contradictions

A simple Guide to the factual Innocence of Tristan;

This follows in content to support with detail the Innocence

document of which Tristan is serving 4 years imprisonment
for transgressions that in reality never happened! Tristan
and his family are actually the victims who have been
suffering an awful web of deceit and lies and the failings
from appointed institutions of Law such as the police and
the courts who have both omitted, and manipulated
evidence to falsely condemn an innocent man! See for
yourself:

Tristan Haynes
5/1/2010
Analysis of the evidence of those making the allegations;

1. Mr. Attard claims that he told the passengers in his car “Hallieh f’idi” (“leave him in my hands”)
which is synonymous with aggression in the Maltese language (the contradiction) / that; he later
denied (despite the record) having said this?
The contradiction: all the other passengers each claim something entirely different was said?

2. Mr. Attard confirmed that he did not check the damage to his vehicle.
The contradiction: Mr. Shepherd claimed Mr. Attard did check the damage to his vehicle?

3. Mr. Attard states that on exiting his vehicle he went straight to speak to the accused (the
contradiction) / that; the accused came with a fist from where he was immediately assaulted
(with 6 distinctively different contradictory versions, some of which are physically impossible)
and was thrown / that; he fell on his bonnet unconscious? That he did not grab the accused
around the neck and maybe he hit him maybe just once? / That; he did not touch the
accused whatsoever maybe I bit him?
The contradiction: Ms. Shepherd claims the accused punched but he did not hit Mr. Attard
because he avoided it, then the accused threw him on the bonnet in front of me then Mr. Attard
went round the car, when my husband and Ms. Attard saw this they went down to help? / That;
Mr. Attard and the accused did not talk at all, the accused hit Mr. Attard with a fist turning and
raising his legs hitting him with his legs and threw him on the bonnet, I then said (words) this is
when my husband and Ms. Attard exited the vehicle?
The contradiction: Mr. Shepherd claims that he alone was already out of the vehicle and after
he had checked the damage to the vehicle he then walked 6 metres or more in front of the
Sierra to listen what Mr. Attard and the accused were saying and at the same moment he found
Mr. Attard sprawled on the bonnet (but he did not know if it was the Sierra or the Punto bonnet)
covered in blood? / That; he was checking the damage on the Sierra for 5 minutes while Mr.
Attard was already sprawled on the bonnet?
The contradiction: Ms. Attard claims that she remained in the Sierra car while Mr. Shepherd had
exited, after allegedly she saw him being punched and kicked and laid on the ground and her
husband with blood holding his head is when she exited the vehicle to stop this fight? (Meaning
Mr. Attard was not unconscious otherwise there would not have been a fight to stop)! / That;
she told Mr. Shepherd to go down to assist and they both exited the vehicle together (which has
been evidentially denied by both Mr. Attard & Mr. Shepherd)?

o Question: how can the party of complainants be deemed to be reliable or consistent

when there is so much variation and contradiction on who and when, together or
alone they exited their vehicle? That there was talking that there was not? That Mr.
Attard was struck that he was not? That he had gone around his vehicle, that he
remained in front of it? That he was immediately found on the bonnet, that he was
fighting in front of it? That he was only punched once / three times, that he was
allegedly kicked, that he was not kicked?

o Question: if the accused came with a ‘fist’ and immediately started punching and
Mr. Attard immediately (via any of his 6 contradictory versions) landed on his

2
 bonnet unconscious? How could the accused then have possibly sustained a bite
injury to the underside of his finger enclosed in a fist? As reiterated in the defence
documents: [Defence Submissions page 7,8] & [Appeal page 5,6].

o Question: would it not be physically impossible for the accused a 69 kilo man to
launch with one punch a certain Mr. Attard a 100 kilo man over 9ft through the air
at the certain height to land on his bonnet unconscious? (In reality the forces
involved to accomplish this would be devastating, also Mr. Attard suffered no
injuries from such a force or from the landing)? Or alternatively what of the
probability of such a large man just allowing himself to be manhandled in being
picked up and thrown in such a manner as reiterated in the defence documents:
[Defence Submissions page 8] and in the defence documents: [Counter arguments
page 4, labelled as Page 31 – [AA5, 3. Thrown & Version 4].

o Question: what of the facts? Photographic evidence proves that Mr. Attard was not
slammed on his bonnet and forensics proves this also as there was no accumulation
of blood found on the bonnet which was described “that he was butchered covered
in blood”?

o Question: in Ms. Shepherds version she describes Mr. Attard going around the
vehicle thus he is not on his bonnet unconscious (which disputes Mr. Attards claim
and the magistrates belief in it) and after such a manoeuvre is only when her
husband and Ms. Attard exit the vehicle? If so how could Mr. Shepherd have variably
claimed that alone he found Mr. Attard sprawled butchered like a skinned rabbit on
the bonnet? Further how could Mr. Attard claim he did not see what happened to
Mr. Shepherd etc? And how could Ms. Attard & Mr. Shepherd then claim that they
said (words) in the manner they described etc?

o Question: how could it be possible for Mr. Attard to have remained balanced
unconscious on his bonnet without falling to the floor? As reiterated in the defence
documents: [Defence Submissions page 8] and in the defence documents: [Counter
arguments page 12, labelled as Page 32 – [AA9, AA9a, AA9b]. A proposal that is
impossible and illogical that the magistrate found nothing peculiar in this?

4. Mr. Attard claims that he did not touch or hold the accused but knows Mr. Shepherd came to
hold him first and then he went and held the accused to separate us.
The contradiction: Mr. Shepherd claims emphatically that he did not touch or hold the accused?
The contradiction: Ms. Attard claims her husband and the accused who were in a position in
front of the Sierra - Mr. Attard was holding the accused saying in English (words)? / That; my
husband was not holding the accused saying in Maltese (words)?

! o Question: well who do you believe as there are deliberate lies? The magistrate in her
Deliberates stated she believed Mr. Attard, then here in [number four] with this
statement of Mr. Attard he himself unmistakably proves his alleged assertions are
false as he was NOT then immediately thrown / fell / punched on his bonnet

3
 unconscious? As “Mr. Shepherd came to hold him first and then he went and held
the accused to separate us”.
Mr. Attard also proves that both of the implausible versions alleged by Mr. Shepherd
in [number 3] are false as how could Mr. Shepherd have found him on the bonnet if
Mr. Attard is declaring that Mr. Shepherd was holding him and then the accused
etc? This also extends to the implausible versions alleged by Ms. Shepherd in
[number 3] are false, however to specifically support a fact in this regard she stated
that Ms. Attard intervened between Mr. Attard and the accused (meaning Mr.
Attard was not on his bonnet unconscious otherwise what was there to intervene
in)? There are many inconsistent versions of Ms. Attard who undoubtedly
specifically also supports this fact that her husband was NOT then immediately on
his bonnet unconscious, as she claimed that she exited the vehicle to stop this
fight? (Meaning Mr. Attard was not on his bonnet unconscious otherwise there
would not have been a fight to stop)!

Note: The accused has always maintained that a ‘situation’ did happen just not in the way it is
alleged and if the Ethical Tools of Law were implemented this would be abundantly apparent, if
the truth was told then there would NOT obviously be so much rampant inconsistent
contradictory versions, which dispute physics, medical evidence and the corroboration of
witnesses which far beyond the instruments of Law proves the innocence of the accused who
has been caught in an awful web of deceit and lies.

Why? Because Mr. Attard and his party are clearly unable to take responsibility for their actions
and they are willing and capable to deceive, a proven example of this is the fact that Mr. & Ms.
Attard deliberately smashed Ms. Attards glasses and planted this material evidence to deceive
the authorities of actual reality of events that night. Their affirmation on oath proves perjury
and their capabilities and ambition to deceive the courts and to pervert the course of justice by
misleading an investigation.

Because of such acts of planting material evidence to deceive and the outlandish allegations
from which no harmony can be established affirms that Mr. Attard and his party are deliberately
avoiding the TRUTH by attempting to hide it, something is missing and the accused Tristan
knows exactly what it is and honestly declares;

without variations, that; after stopping our Punto car with passengers Ramona and her
grandmother, I checked for damage there was none, then I walked slowly back towards Mr.
Attard at his Sierra car (25ft approx away), I was very aware of the immediate and present
danger from the centre of the main road we were on and it was dark, so I turned my head to
confirm to myself that we were relatively safe from oncoming traffic from the opposite direction
on doing so I was suddenly being strangled from behind from someone very strong and big, I
could not breath and had to do something to survive, I managed to get my left arm up between
my neck and Mr. Attards choke hold, I pushed my hand backwards into the face of Mr. Attard
and managed to swivel around while Mr. Attard was still biting my finger he then punched me in
the face and it is from exactly here that I was now facing him I started to fight back. The honest
version of the accused is validated by medical certification of bruising around the neck and is
also consistent with the probability of how Tristan was bitten.

4
 It is against procedural Law and that of a fair trial that the injury certificate and Doctor validating
the injuries e.g. the strangulation bruising around the neck and the bite puncture wound sustained
by Tristan was not produced by the prosecution for 2 years before the courts? Why?? Also the
magistrate in her Deliberates in this document: [Deliberates page 37] despite the quote of the
doctors certificate she has removed the strangulation bruising and the bite wound? Why?? As
explained in the defence documents: [Counter arguments page 31, labelled as Page 37 – [AC3 b].

! 5. Mr. Attard claims thereafter a moment of 2 seconds he regained consciousness and while on his
bonnet before his escape he took out his handkerchief to wipe blood from his eye and heard
Ramona scream “Stop it, Stop it” he also then heard Mr. Shepherd say “Leave my friend”. He
did not see or hear his wife.
The contradiction: Mr. Shepherd claimed, I told the accused “stop hitting him” in that instant
the accused turned on me doing the same Fung Fu movements?
The contradiction: Ms. Attard has also stated that she heard Ramona say “Stop it, Stop it” at the
moment that Mr. Shepherd supposedly said (words) to the accused from which she alleges V1:
the accused proceeded to assault Mr. Shepherd and then after he slammed her husband Mr.
Attard on the bonnet of the Sierra car upon which she made courage and pushed (or
contradictorily) / told the accused (words) and he went to his Punto car. V2: that; we were in
front of the bonnet, then Mr. Shepherd said “leave my friend” if the accused went for Mr.
Shepherd it must be so in the middle dancing jumping raising and hitting with his legs like
boxing upon which she made courage and pushed / told the accused (words) and he went to
his Punto car?

The contradiction: Saviour Briffa (a witness) also heard Ramona say “Stop it, Stop it” therefore
he and his party had previously driven up to with a view of this fight who are now actually
present on scene and their account ultimately disputes both Mr. & Ms. Attards versions, Mr. &
Ms. Shepherds versions and the magistrates assertions, while corroborating the accused and
Ramona, that a big man Mr. Attard was still fighting in front of the Sierra with the accused!

o Question: well who do you believe? Mr. Attard who has confirmed that he had 1
fight with the accused that lasted for a minute and a half approx, that he was
engaged with the accused the whole time except for his alleged assertion that he
was unconscious for 2 seconds. The magistrate has believed this and condemned
Tristan to 4 years imprisonment for her belief that it is possible to have assaulted
both Ms. Attard & Mr. Shepherd in 2 seconds? Despite analysis of Testimony that
reveals the impossibility and untruths? Despite their being witnesses present that
prove the alleged accusations are in fact false and the magistrates’ findings are
incorrect!

! o Question: how can Mr. Shepherd be heard to be talking after if it was alleged and
believed that prior he was ferociously assaulted and subsequently unconscious?

o Question: how can the accused be in two places at once? Despite this theory
contesting his previous unconscious on the bonnet version Mr. Attard also claimed
variably that while he was escaping with the accused chasing after him he does not
know if during the accused went for anyone else? If Mr. Attard was to be believed

5
 how can the accused be chasing him and assaulting Mr. Shepherd & Ms. Attard at
the same time? A version which is disputed by his wife & Ms. Shepherd and the
Briffa’s? Not forgetting that in the magistrates own judgement which produces
Tristan’s prison sentence, in this document: [Deliberates page 33] she attributed
the alleged assault on Mr. Shepherd & Ms. Attard was while Mr. Attard claimed he
was on his bonnet? The magistrate herself appoints the Briffa’s are present but their
account is NOT what the magistrate falsely elicits?

o Question: how can it be possible for Ms. Attard have 2 very different scenarios at
the same moment in time? She proves herself that she is untruthful. She also
discloses that all persons were in front of the Sierra which is where her husband
remained meaning he was not unconscious or on the bonnet and there was no
escape with the accused chasing etc. As the accused did go to his Punto car thus
confirming that the magistrates’ belief ...“the accused caught up with him and
assaulted him again” is utterly incorrect there was NOT a second fight with Mr.
Attard and the accused. V1 claims Mr. Attard was slammed on his bonnet after the
alleged assault on Mr. Shepherd? While V2: bears ‘elements of truth’ as there are
witnesses to the same incident thereby corroborating the (*actual) performance
crucially considering at this moment Mr. R Briffa and his party are present
meaning the accused then could not have been kicking Mr. Shepherd etc! Mr.
Attard is not unconscious or on his bonnet! He was not escaping or being chased.
No one describes that Mr. Shepherd was being kicked or that the accused was
raising, hitting or kicking with his legs! What was witnessed was Mr. Attard still
fighting with the accused which categorically proves how deceitful and untruthful
the party of complainants are.

6. Here is intermingled with [number 5] Mr. Shepherd claims, I told the accused “stop hitting him”
in that instant the accused turned on me doing the same Fung Fu movements?
The contradiction: Mr. Attard in [number 5] has disclosed that he first heard Ramona scream
“Stop it, Stop it” and then he heard Mr. Shepherd say “leave my friend”. Which means Mr.
Attard was coherent and in the vicinity yet he did not witness Mr. Shepherds alleged account?
To further substantiate this Mr. Attard was a witness to the ‘elements of truth’ of his wife’s V2
which was also witnessed by Mr. R Briffa that the accused was jumping and hopping but
importantly there was NO assault or raising of legs kicking Mr. Shepherd, this much is
corroborated to prove that the allegations are indeed false!
The contradiction: Saviour Briffa (a witness) also heard Ramona say “Stop it, Stop it” before
apparently Mr. Shepherd said (words) and he did not witness any of Mr. Shepherds account!
The contradiction: Ms. Attard has variably claimed that; she was stuck before the alleged
assault on Mr. Shepherd? / That; she was struck in-between the alleged assault on Mr.
Shepherd? / That; she was struck after the alleged assault on Mr. Shepherd? That; she was
punched? / That; she was elbowed and blood came out? (Her descriptions in testimony are
contradicted by herself and medical assessment and by the variable disputing testimonies of Ms.
Shepherd).

6
 o Question: although the testimony of Mr. Shepherd is proven to be false through the
coherence of Mr. Attard and from present witnesses, however if Mr. Shepherd
claimed in that instant the accused turned on me doing the same Fung Fu
movements? How could the accused then have allegedly assaulted Ms. Attard
before or during? Especially considering that Mr. Shepherd claimed he was alone in
each of his different alleged versions of which importantly Ms. Attard does NOT play
any role! Also Mr. Attard claimed to hear Mr. Shepherd say (words) then why would
he not hear his wife say (words)? He was emphatic that he did not see or hear his
wife.

! o Question: if Mr. Attard could hear, why then did he not hear any sounds
whatsoever of the alleged ferocious beating emanating which would be an
automatic natural response from anyone being attacked and being injured? What
also then of the noises generated from the anger and effort to ferociously attack and
hit, where are these noises? No one is assaulted or hurt in silence!

o Question: Mr. Shepherds fanatical description of Bruce Lee, Kung Fu etc. is

synonymise with martial arts and kicking yet Mr. Attard himself stated he was only
punched 3 times and medically he had symptoms of just two hits, there was no
claim to any kicking so how could Mr. Shepherd firstly claim ‘Kung Fu & Bruce Lee’?
And secondly how can he be so insistent that the ‘same Kung Fu movements’ used
on Mr. Attard were allegedly perpetrated on him, then be so different? Furthermore
Ms. Shepherd also falsely claimed the accused kicked Mr. Attard who himself
disputes this categorically.

o Question: Saviour Briffa (a witness) as is his son Mr. R Briffa previously drove up to
with a view of the incident, assessed the scene and exited their vehicle, who are
now present on site, during of which they categorically dispute and prove the
Attards & Shepherds controversial and varied allegations are absolutely false,
while corroborating Ramona and the accused version that; Tristan was engaged all
through the whole duration defending and fighting back Mr. Attards aggression
(this has never been denied) when this fight stopped after first being attacked
from behind strangled and bitten, the accused was not going to take his eyes off
from this aggressor for self preservation sake. Thus the accused was walking
backwards while Ms. Attard who demonstrated her assertiveness by firmly ushering
the accused and Ramona towards the Punto car telling them to go etc! (Which is
confirmed by Ramona & her Grandmother). Mr. Attard was looking directly at the
accused and he had blood on his face as he was leaning slightly with one hand on
the front of his Sierra car while moving across to his right side? The accused then
noticed another man Mr. Shepherd dressed all in white laying on his back along the
left side of this Sierra? This really puzzled the accused? The accused got into their
Punto car drivers seat, where Victoria their grandmother had not yet even taken off
her front passenger seat belt. Tristan had to re exit the 2 door vehicle to let Ramona
in and here then ensued the incident with Mr. R Briffa who approached the Punto
car.

7
7. Here is intermingled with [numbers 5 & 6] Mr. Shepherd has 4 different claims that;
immediately he was struck twice in the head and the accused spun around and kicked him
three times in the chest? / That; he was struck once in the head and the accused spun
around and kicked him in his ribs and belly? / That; he was kicked in the face and suffered
several punches from a fist to his chest and face? / + the version given to the Hospital.
The contradiction: Ms. Shepherd has variably claimed that; when her husband had fallen? /
That; the accused threw him? / That; she thinks the accused kicked him? / That; she saw him
hit the ground badly? / That the accused kicked him only while he lay on the ground? / That;
the accused was punching my husband? / That; the accused did not punch him, he only
kicked him?
The contradiction: Ms. Attard claimed that; while she remained in her vehicle the accused
punched and kicked and laid Mr. Shepherd on the ground? / That; Mr. Shepherd said (words:
leave my friend alone) then the accused punched him, so she said “leave him alone” and the
accused punched her once. The accused then turned back to Mr. Shepherd and punched him
and kicked him in the same place? Then the accused grabbed Mr. Attard and slammed him
on the bonnet? / That; in front of the Sierra Mr. Shepherd said “leave my friend” that Mr.
Attard was holding the accused saying in English (words) or alternatively my husband was
not holding the accused saying in Maltese (words), Mr. Shepherd said “leave my friend” and
I touched him on his arm and said “why are you doing this?” where upon the accused
elbowed me in the eye and blood came out? / That; first the accused hit me then Mr.
Shepherd said “leave my friend” then the accused kicked him with his legs and threw him on
the floor and continued to kick him three times? / That; first we were in front of the bonnet,
then Mr. Shepherd said “leave my friend” if the accused went for Mr. Shepherd it must be so
in the middle dancing jumping raising and hitting with his legs like boxing, my husband went
around the car (note - not on the bonnet or unconscious), I made courage and said slowly
“why are you doing this?” and this is the time I was hit then I told him “go police are coming”
and he went alone to his Punto car.

o Question: the multiple and variable contradictions are endless to discern any truth
of reality from these allegations other than where there are witnesses to the same
incident thereby corroborating the (*actual) performance thus exposing the
exaggerations and perjury being committed.

 It has been well established that witnesses were present this undisputedly
proves that Mr. Attard was still engaged in fighting with the accused which is
the same in corroboration with the accused and Ramona. Their presence
absolutely proves the deceit and lies of the party of complainants.
 Mr. Attard himself proves that he was in reality actually coherent and NOT
in a state of unconsciousness at the moment it was alleged and
subsequently asserted by the magistrate that Mr. Shepherd was assaulted?
 Ms. Attard is providing multiple stories to every possible scenario, however
on a timeline in reality there cannot be different versions acted out within
the same moment in real-time. Therefore her version that bears ‘elements
of truth’ which should unequivocally exonerate the accused as there are
witnesses to the same incident thereby corroborating the (*actual)

8
 performance thereby exposing the exaggerations showing how deceitful and
untruthful she and her co-conspirators actually are from the obvious perjury
being committed;
 *her own husband Mr. Attard has stated “I cannot describe what
happened exactly but he (the accused) was making movements like
those made in boxing, he was inviting me to fight”.
 *Ms. Shepherd stated “he was jumping like sort of inviting them”.
 *Mr. R Briffa stated “in fact he kept hopping like a boxer on a ring
hopping like as if he was challenging you”.

o Question: importantly physics and medical evidence does not support in anyway Mr.
Shepherds account neither does the corroboration of witnesses the Briffa’s and the
accused and Ramona. e.g. If a person from 0 height trips and falls it is usual to cut or
at least have abrasions on the knees and hands. It is alleged that the accused threw
Mr. Shepherd some 3 metres or more which would be physically impossible despite
this fact Mr. Shepherd has no abrasions or cuts typically associated from landing
along a road etc. No one else alleged that he was thrown? If it is to be presumed for
a moment that the accused did kick Mr. Shepherd in his rib then where are the
other injuries from being kicked while on the ground? Where are the other injuries
from him being allegedly kicked and punched in the face? There are none! Meaning
absolutely this alleged assault is false especially considering that the two other
persons (Mr. Attard & Mr. Briffa) who the accused did engage as a matter of self
defence did suffer a consequence matching identically the complaint with the
admission (that was never denied) with medical assessment. Something Mr.
Shepherd unequivocally fails to match with his outlandish allegations.

Note: it should be disclosed that despite Superintendant Simon Galea stating that “Mr. Shepherd
tendered his evidence. In fact I believe, in my opinion, he went exactly to the point, he explained
exactly what happened”.

However in the defence documents: [Defence Submissions page 10] It is to be respectfully brought
to the attention of this Honourable Court that David Shepherd has provided this court with all sorts
of varying, inconsistent and contrasting accounts as to what happened on that 10th May 2003 night.
He did not remember in court when police Superintendant Simon Galea and court expert Dr Zammit
Lewis interviewed him in hospital after the incident etc.

There are also these contradictions in relation to the note above; Mr. Shepherd himself stated that “I
think they picked me up from the ground” which would imply then he was not semi unconscious.
However then Mr. Shepherd contradicts himself by claiming, Question: from the Courts {and when
you regained consciousness, what do you remember and where were you}? “In Hospital I said what
am I doing here”. (The contradiction) / “I remained confused for around three days, I did not even
know I was in Hospital”?

9
 8. Here is intermingled with [numbers 5,6 & 7] Ms. Shepherd claimed that she said (words) to
the accused and all she was hearing was obscenity?
The contradiction: Mr. Attard claimed that he was able to escape with blurred vision all the
way around his vehicle, who then stepped over ignoring his friend Mr. Shepherd lying along
the road on the opposite side of the vehicle (which definitely would not be normal
behaviour to ignore a person obviously in need of attention), that he did not see or know
where his wife was? And the accused was not nearby.
The contradiction: Ms. Attard claimed that she pushed the accused back into his Punto car.
/ That; she told the accused to go etc. and he went alone while she went to where Mr.
Shepherd lay?
The contradiction: Ramona & her grandmother Victoria and Tristan confirm that Ms. Attard
came to the Punto car telling them to just go etc.
The contradiction: Mr. R Briffa & Saviour Briffa are present and claim that they were now
engaged with the accused (in some respects they were just not in the context how they
alleged).

o Question: despite the contradictions from all these persons not one confirms that
Ms. Shepherd told the accused anything? And certainly none at any time ever
confirmed that the accused spoke in the manner described by Ms. Shepherd. In fact
these persons reveal that Ms. Shepherd had not exited the Sierra vehicle yet to be
by the side of her husband! This is proposed by Mr. Attard who has not heard or
seen neither woman at the side of Mr. Shepherd? And further if Mr. R Briffa is
engaged with the accused then obviously there is focus to this far more dangerous
situation which would command total attention which would not be distracted to
the alleged whining of Ms. Shepherd from a distance of 25 ft away in the dark!

o Question: we are all on a main road with vehicles passing at 60 km per hour, it was a
Saturday night there was allot of vehicles meaning there was a lot of road noise
making it obviously near to impossible too hear well or clearly. The Briffa’s described
hearing Ramona & Ms. Attard screaming therefore it is implausible that Ms.
Shepherd from 25ft away is saying things to the accused? This implausible factor
also extends into the alleged calmly spoken words of Ms. Attard & Mr. Shepherd
that in a colloquial fashion they spoke during a intense fight?

Another manufactured false claim of Ms. Shepherd is that she stated Victoria came from the Punto
car to her and told her things but she did not understand? This is odd because Victoria was Maltese
so there should have not been any language complications. What is impossible is that Victoria was
disabled and could NOT walk unaided, meaning Ms. Shepherd is caught in another of her absurd lies.

9. This is an important new revelation! Ms. Shepherd has variably claimed that suddenly; when
her husband had fallen? / That; the accused threw him? / That; she thinks the accused
kicked him? / That; she saw him hit the ground badly? / That the accused kicked him only
while he lay on the ground? / That; the accused was punching my husband? / That; the
accused did not punch him, he only kicked him? That suddenly when her husband hit the

10
 ground badly she removed her seat belt and exited the vehicle because she knows her
husband suffers from epilepsy “I started to say David, David” he did not speak to me and I
started to say “he killed, he killed him” I struggled to lift him because cars were passing
and Ms. Attard told him go police etc. and he went away, he was far away.
The contradiction: Mr. Attard claimed the same in [number 8] that he did not see or know
where his wife was? He had not heard or seen neither woman at the side of Mr. Shepherd?
And the accused was not nearby.
The contradiction: (the crossed out has been proven to be untrue) Ms. Attard claimed two
versions in the same moment in time; V1 that her husband was slammed on the bonnet
after the alleged assault on Mr. Shepherd and she pushed the accused back to his Punto car
saying go etc. & V2 the accused went for Mr. Shepherd it must be so in the middle dancing
jumping raising and hitting with his legs like boxing, my husband went around the car (note -
not on the bonnet or unconscious), I made courage and said slowly “why are you doing
this?” and this is the time I was hit then I told him “go police are coming” and he went alone
to his Punto car while I went to where Mr. Shepherd lay?

The contradiction: Mr. Saviour Briffa & Mr. R Briffa previously drove up to with a view of
the incident, assessed the scene and exited their vehicle, who are now present on site,
during of which they categorically dispute and prove the Attards & Shepherds controversial
and varied allegations are absolutely false, while corroborating Ramona and the accused
version. They have stated that a big man Mr. Attard was engaged in fighting in front of the
Sierra vehicle and there was two women Ms. Attard and Ramona screaming while Mr.
Shepherd lay on his back straight and motionless on the side of this same vehicle and other
cars were passing close by, that when they arrived the fight calmed down and stopped and
then it became an altercation between Mr. R Briffa and the accused.

! All of the Briffa’s in their statements recall this detail however they do NOT state that Ms.
Shepherd was out of the vehicle by her husband or lifting or giving assistance? Neither
have they (like everyone else present) heard Ms. Shepherd say anything?

o Question: the fact that Ms. Shepherd has not yet exited her vehicle which is
promoted by all the Briffa’s and Mr. Attard in their evidence suggests a number of
things;
 That she did not exit immediately as she claimed?
 That she initially did not know her husband was on the ground?

Main factors unveiled are Mr. Shepherd is already on the ground a distance away from
where a fight is taking place between Mr. Attard and the accused at the front of the Sierra.
Ms. Shepherd is NOT out of the vehicle assisting her husband during the time the Briffa’s
drove up to and exited their vehicle arriving on the scene as other vehicles are passing by.
After the Briffa’s arrival it is known then she exited the Sierra vehicle. This implies that Mr.
Shepherd had just seconds prior succumbed to an epileptic seizure or fainting?

Obviously it would be accepted as normal behaviour to go to the assistance of a person in

need especially a loved one and eventually Ms. Shepherd did, which in itself undermines Mr.

11
 Attards claim of him immediately being punched landing on his bonnet unconscious? Would
it if true be accepted as normal behaviour for Ms. Attard to then go to his assistance and
stay with him? However she did not which affirms that Mr. Attard was not on his bonnet
unconscious as extensively already proved.

! The fact that Ms. Shepherd had not exited the Sierra vehicle until after the arrival of the
Briffa’s is a ‘marker’ of action that renders impotent Mr. Attards ludicrous claim that he was
immediately unconscious etc. and the magistrates belief in this that; during this 2 seconds
the accused immediately assaulted Mr. Shepherd & Ms. Attard (*despite the magistrates
own admittance at this moment the Brifa’s are present who absolutely prove wrong this
theory which Tristan is serving a 4 year prison term for) then the accused was allegedly
kicking Mr. Shepherd while he lay on the ground, then apparently he waited for Mr. Attard
to take out a handkerchief to wipe his eye allowing him then dazed and blurred to
circumvent the perimeter of his vehicle stepping over Mr. Shepherd laying on the ground
and then and only then the accused passed him and in front of the Sierra there “the accused
caught up with him and assaulted him again”. This theory then *reintroduces the arrival of
the Briffa’s and some point thereafter Ms. Shepherd exits the Sierra vehicle and goes to the
side of her husband?

o Question: if Mr. Attard & Mr. Shepherd were immediately assaulted after each other
(their description) and Ms. Shepherd stated that she immediately exited the vehicle
after this alleged assault, then accepting the ritual of normal behaviour why would
Ms. Shepherd in the ‘theory’ of the magistrate wait for the alleged kicking on the
ground to end? Wait for Mr. Attard to take out a handkerchief etc? Wait for the
escape and chase to end? Wait for the second assault to commence? And wait
unknowingly for the arrival of the Briffa’s? Before she exits out from the Sierra
vehicle to assist her husband? This ‘theory’ is utterly implausible and preposterous,
especially when considering the other factors that have completely dispelled this
notion expressed throughout this document!

o Question: the ‘marker’ of Ms. Shepherd not being out of the Sierra vehicle proves in
addition;

 Specifically in number 3 of this document: The contradiction: Ms. Attard

claims that she remained in the Sierra car while Mr. Shepherd had exited,
after allegedly she saw him being punched and kicked and laid on the
ground is when she exited the vehicle. This is proved false otherwise Ms.
Attard and Ms. Shepherd would have exited together!
 Most importantly that there was NO second fight between Mr. Attard and
the accused!

10. The magistrate in her Deliberates stated in this document: [Deliberates page 37] incredibly?
...The court, therefore concludes that the versions given by David Shepherd and Joseph
Attard, with a few exceptions on matters of mere detail, are credible and dependable.

12
This is heavily contested in the defence documents: [Counter arguments page 31, labelled as Page
37 – [AC3 c, AC3 d] that insists not mere but every detail of evidence illuminates the complete
contrary of the magistrates’ assertions, pertinent examples that begin and end with Mr. Attards &
Mr. Shepherds involvement together;

 Conditions: Mr. Attard - “There was a queue & a lot of traffic”. (the contradiction) / Mr.
Shepherd - “There was no traffic”?
 Braking: Mr. Attard - “I came to a screeching standstill stop otherwise I would have crashed into
the rear of the accused Punto car”! (the contradiction) / Mr. Shepherd - “No braking or
screeching of tyres?”
 Overtaking: Mr. Attard - “the Punto was driving straight in front of him. I just pressed the
accelerator and remained straight without using my indicator”. (the contradiction) / Mr.
Shepherd - “Mr. Attard switched on his indicator and pulled on the right hand of the steering
wheel going up”?
 Checking vehicle damage: Mr. Attard - “I did not check my car, no. My wife and Mr. Shepherd
had not come out of the Sierra because he suffers with epilepsy and would get a fit”. (the
contradiction) / Mr. Shepherd - “Mr. Attard first checked his car. Then when I exited the Sierra I
checked the car for 5 or 6 minutes then walked 6 metres to hear what was being said”?
 Intervention: Mr. Attard - “Mr. Shepherd first held me and then after the accused to separate
the fight”. (the contradiction) / Mr. Shepherd - “I did not go to separate them, no, no, no, no”?

I
n conclusion it is highly questionable on how the magistrate has drawn her conclusion of Mr.
Attard & Mr. Shepherds credible and dependable allegations? Because if some judicial prowess
was actually exercised then as explained in [number 4] of this document where Mr. Attard claims
that he did not touch or hold the accused but knows Mr. Shepherd came to hold him first and then
he went and held the accused to separate us. With this statement of Mr. Attard he himself
unmistakably proves his alleged assertions are false as he was NOT then immediately thrown / fell /
punched on his bonnet unconscious? But engaged in this revelation of separation, Mr. Attard also
proves the implausible versions alleged by Mr. Shepherd in [number 3] are false as how could Mr.
Shepherd have found him on the bonnet skinned like a rabbit if Mr. Attard is declaring that Mr.
Shepherd was holding him and then the accused etc? Not forgetting this vital evidence that only 2
seconds thereafter according to Mr. Attard he heard Ramona scream “Stop it, Stop it” and then
heard Mr. Shepherd say “leave my friend” which also crucially proves that Mr. Shepherd was NOT
then assaulted just prior as the Attards & Shepherds and the magistrate asserts. The other evidential
fact is that Mr. R Briffa & Saviour Briffa also heard Ramona so were actually present and their
account in unison by corroboration with the accused and Ramona instrumentally proves the Attards
& Shepherds are proffering false allegations (perjury) which the magistrate is supporting by
manipulation of actual evidence to enforce a guilty verdict against the evidence? This as exposed is a
danger to the Innocent in society and to the integrity bestowed upon the Legal profession and to the
honour believed in Justice!
The proof is in
the pudding

13
What follows is no longer related to the charges but is the whole Story and nothing but the Truth:

Throughout this document it is explained that the Briffa’s arrived and the fighting between Mr.
Attard and the accused calmed down and stopped and from then on it became an incident between
Mr. R Briffa and the accused. It has been detailed how variably Ms. Shepherd & Ms. Attard have
confirmed that the accused went and got into his Punto car. This has been confirmed by the accused
Ramona and her Grandmother - Victoria who had until this point not managed to release her seat
belt, so the accused re-exited the 2 door car to let Ramona in and this is where Mr. R Briffa came
screaming over to the Punto like a man possessed. The accused did (never denied) swear back at Mr.
R Briffa who proceeded to bite his hand in a gesture of rage, turning he went to the side of the road
on his hands and knees digging, he returned with a rock declaring his intention of smashing this rock
into the head of the accused and indeed he tried! In this process of defending himself the accused
punched (never denied) Mr. R Briffa knocking out his teeth. As reiterated in the defence documents:
[Defence Submissions page 18,19,20].

11. Mr. R Briffa incredibly tries to claim that the accused came over? (This is overwhelmingly
proven false);
The contradiction: Mr. Saviour Briffa claimed they were far from the white Sierra. (Meaning
they were at the Punto).
The contradiction: Tania Briffa claimed we were two cars behind. (Meaning they were at
the Punto).
The contradiction: Mariella Briffa claimed we were two cars behind. (Meaning they were at
the Punto).
The contradiction: Mr. Attard claimed that Mr. R Briffa went to the accused and that he did
not see or know where his wife was? And the accused was not nearby. (Meaning they were
at the Punto).
The contradiction: Ms. Attard claimed that she pushed the accused back into his Punto car.
/ That; she told the accused to go etc. and he went alone while she went to where Mr.
Shepherd lay?
The contradiction: Ramona & her grandmother Victoria and Tristan confirm that Ms. Attard
came to the Punto car telling them to just go etc.
The contradiction: Ms. Shepherd claimed that Ms. Attard told the accused to go, police etc.
and he went away, the accused was far away. That Mr. R Briffa went to speak to the
accused. (Meaning they were at the Punto) and then Mr. R Briffa came after with blood on
his mouth to help.

12. Here is intermingled with [number 11] Mr. R Briffa incredibly tries to claim that he picked up
Mr. Shepherd to his feet and while in his hands the accused tried to hit Mr. Shepherd? But
he pulled Mr. Shepherd aside to avoid the blows?
The contradiction: (as detailed by all above in number 11).

o Question: how can it be believed to be possible to hold the dead weight of around
100 kilos approx and to move this weight far quicker to avoid the ‘blows’ than the
actual speed of these alleged punches blows hitting their desired target?

14
13. Here is intermingled with [numbers 11 & 12] Mr. R Briffa incredibly tries to claim that he
gave Mr. Shepherd to two woman Ms. Shepherd and Ms. Attard?
The contradiction: Mr. Saviour Briffa claimed that his son Ruben leaned the unconscious
Mr. Shepherd against the Sierra car? (Common sense dictates this is a false accomplishment
and impossible considering he has stated they were far from the white Sierra meaning they
were actually at the Punto car and this is not where Mr. Shepherd lay).
The contradiction: Tania Briffa claimed that her husband Ruben leaned the unconscious Mr.
Shepherd against the Sierra car? (Common sense dictates this is a false accomplishment and
impossible considering she has stated they were 2 cars behind, meaning the incident she is
describing is happening at the Punto car, where Mr. Shepherd is not).
The contradiction: Mr. Attard claimed that blurred he saw Mr. Shepherd on the ground and
the accused was far away and he did not see his wife.
The contradiction: Ms. Attard claimed that she pushed the accused back into his Punto car.
/ That; she told the accused to go etc. and he went alone while she went to where Mr.
Shepherd lay on the ground? She did not see Mr. Ruben Briffa do anything as she was
concentrating on Mr. Shepherd lying on the ground.
The contradiction: Ms. Shepherd claimed that she was trying to lift her husband, the
accused was far away. That Mr. R Briffa went to speak to the accused. (Meaning they were
at the Punto) and then Mr. R Briffa came after with blood on his mouth to help. (Meaning
after he threw the rock and got punched) as honestly described by Ramona and the accused.

o Question: Mr. R Briffa attempted to make himself out to be a Hero while evidence
demonstrates unequivocally that he is committing Perjury! How can it be possibly
believed that he gave Mr. Shepherd to his wife and Ms. Attard when they both deny
this emphatically stating that Mr. Shepherd is still on the ground etc. It certainly
cannot be accepted as true that an unconscious person can stand all by themselves
can it? Then why have these persons not been investigated and charged with
Perjury?? (Perhaps because the magistrate believes it is possible).

14. Here is intermingled with [numbers 11,12 & 13] Mr. R Briffa incredibly tries to claim
thereafter that he grasped and pushed the accused saying (words) and the accused replied
with “fuck you” then he found himself in a headlock and was punched, he could not endure
feeling his teeth knocked off so he took a rock and threw it and he boarded his vehicle and
left.
The contradiction: Mr. Saviour Briffa claimed that he was shoulder to shoulder with his son
Ruben who said nothing to the accused and the accused said nothing? That the accused
grabbed his son in a headlock and punched him once and he pulled his son away, who was
completely confused was searching to see what he could find to defend himself, he found a
piece of soil that when you throw it disintegrates? That the accused chased them back to
their vehicle “because we were far from the white Sierra (meaning that they were at the
Punto) and the accused only returned when he saw Ruben furious biting his fist with blood
running down his mouth, then we left?
The contradiction: Tania Briffa claimed that from 2 cars behind meaning that they were at
the Punto) she saw the accused giving only one blow to her husband, she claims she did not

15
see her husband biting his fist or looking for or holding or throwing a rock.. I then saw my
husband approach our car and we drove off?
The contradiction: Mariella Briffa claimed that her brother Ruben said nothing to the
accused who I only saw punch my brother in the teeth. My brother did not pick up a stone or
throw anything, the accused chased after my brother so we shouted at him and he left?
The contradiction: Mr. Attard claimed that the accused was far away and he did not see his
wife, he only saw a blow in this incident. He did not hear Mr. R Briffa say anything? He did
not hear Ms. Shepherd say anything? He did not hear the accused say anything?
The contradiction: Ms. Attard claimed that she did not see Mr. R Briffa doing anything? She
did hear the accused say “fuck you”. (She heard because she was at the Punto as confirmed
by Ramona & Victoria and the accused and by one of her own versions).
The contradiction: Ms. Shepherd claimed that Mr. R Briffa only came to help after he had
blood around his mouth, she claims she was hearing repeated obscenity?

o Question: bearing in mind that we are at the Punto and not at the Sierra thus
proving the perjury etc. as already detailed throughout numbers 11, 12, & 13 of this
document. However for specifics how can the party of complainants be deemed to
be reliable or consistent when there is so much variation and contradiction on
whether Mr. R Briffa said (words), that he did not say (words)? The accused never
denied that he did swear back once at Mr. R Briffa. Mr. Attard at the Sierra did not
hear this, but his wife who he could not see did hear thus confirming that she was
indeed at the Punto as confirmed by Ramona and Victoria. Therefore she has seen
Mr. R Briffa’s rock assault, her denial is her attempt of protecting him but this
unwittingly proves that Mr. R Briffa absolutely did NOT pick up Mr. Shepherd in the
heroic manner he falsely claimed.

o Question: if everyone has seen the punch (which has never been denied) then if Mr.
R Briffa was in a headlock from where he claimed he received this punch then why is
there no confirmation to support his false headlock claim? Further Mr. R Briffa is as
big if not bigger in stature than Mr. Attard being approx 100 kg in weight, with the
accused being only 69 kg, Mr. R Briffa could easily have avoided or released himself,
certainly he would not remain in a headlock to be punched?

o Question: besides the fact that Mr. R Briffa admitted that it was actually a rock that
he procured and threw. Therefore it is ridiculous for Saviour on oath to claim his son
did not in gesture bite his fist and that he only grabbed a piece of soil that
disintegrates? / That; when the Defendant saw my son was going to throw the stone
to him, he saw my son was furious, biting his fist with blood running down his mouth
(which is not probable to believe that a man Ruben who could not endure because
he is feeling his teeth knocked off, could then bite his fist furiously with blood
running down). / That; later Saviour completely contradicted himself on cross
examination “yes, at that moment my son bit his hand when he went to look for
the stone”.

o Question: Mr. R Briffa himself has made no reference to being chased, neither has
his wife or anyone else, which exposes the absurd and false presentations of Saviour

16
 & Mariela. It must be asked why would the Defendant just turn around after Mariela
shouted at him while Saviour falsely asserts the accused only returned back on
seeing his sons’ furious display? The question continues how could it be at all
possible for Mr. R Briffa being all confused having the time to go to the pavement
to look for a stone on his hands and knees? To then furiously bite his fist with
blood running down his mouth, to then throw the rock? To then take his
spectacles from Mr. Attard and put them on. To then get the number plate
registration of the Punto. To then assist with the lifting of Mr. Shepherd from the
ground into the Sierra, in the distance and time of just 25ft of the accused chasing
after them from the Punto? Although they tried to have the courts believe this all
happened within a distance of 3 ft?

To note that Mr. R Briffa attempted to contact Ramona to request that if we paid a bribe he would
change his story to the truth, when Ramona reported this to Superintendant Simon Galea he
became abusive and threatened to keep the accused in prison as long as he liked? Why was there no
investigation into this and why the unprofessional abusive attitude?? In court the Parte Civil
prosecution who was representing the complainants in court pointed at the accused and started
screaming that he must be guilty because he looks like a criminal? Thereafter he became a Minister
and Mr. R Briffa suspiciously was excused never appearing before the courts again? Which is
validated by the European Arrest Warrants. Where is this legal document from the AG Office
informing the courts of their removal decision etc?

15. The driving situation that started this whole unfortunate saga has been explained in the
defence documents: [Defence Submissions pages 1,2,3,4 & 5] Tristan was driving his
girlfriend Ramona & her grandmother Victoria home in Ramona’s car a Fiat Punto, they were
travelling in a single file line like all the other cars before them, when BRAKE lights glared on
progressing down the hill, the accused activated accordingly his brake to continue this safety
event, immediately audible was the screeching of tyres then seen in the mirror the Sierra car
behind swerve out of control and stop. The Punto continued on following all the cars in
front. This is confirmed in testimony by Mr. Attard the driver of the Sierra who stated that
first he attempted to overtake immediately after the Splash & Fun roundabout (a dangerous
and illegal position) that he came to a screeching standstill ‘STOP’ nearly colliding into the
rear of the Punto. In fact in the words from the Court ‘So at first you were moving exactly
behind each other, then there was that brake and you had to stop by force because
otherwise you would have crashed into him’ Mr. Attard replied “Exactly well said” however
the other Sierra occupants Mr. Shepherd said under Oath before the same Courts that they
did NOT have to brake hard at any moment and there was no screeching of tyres?

Later on, again Mr. Attard attempted to overtake in a dangerous and illegal fashion this time actually
colliding into Ramona’s car. Mr. Attard admitted ‘that there were no cars coming from the other side
and as such he decided to overtake’ which is substantiated by ADT photographic evidence of
examples of cars crossing the medium into the opposite flow of traffic to illegally overtake. Mr.
Attard in the opposite flow of traffic lane failed to overtake and immediately dropped back. This
does NOT CONSITUTE absurdly that the Punto overtook from the inside? How could the Punto

17
overtake a car that he was always in front of? The Punto just remained as it was! The investigative
Police should professionally have noticed obvious details such as this, it should not be left to the
Defence to highlight the attentive skills required for a proper and just investigation. The accused was
driving in a Single file line with definitive confirmation from the ADT Malta’s Transport Directive that
the dynamics of this road is a Single Lane Road with single lane road markings. It is amazing then the
police and prosecution submitted to the courts double lane markings with dynamics of road use as
double lanes implying falsely to the courts that it was the accused who overtook on the inside lane
and charged him with such and to compound this madness further Mr. Attard who has unwittingly
admitted and by ADT evidence which proves he was in the opposite lane of traffic, when he
immediately dropped back and stopped behind in the correct and legal lane thus first blocking the
road, however the police have incorrectly charged Tristan with this offence also?

16. After the fight with Mr. Attard and then Mr. R Briffa’s ‘Rock vs Punch’ there was Ms. Attard
continuing her request that we go as confirmed by Ramona & Victoria. Everyone boarded
their vehicles and left the scene and here follows in the interest of True Justice a simple
insight to the sheer dishonest determination of the Attards & Shepherds who on oath falsely
declare;
Ms. Shepherd and Ms. Attard the same claimed that “the Punto tried to block us again to
stop us from passing” and “the Punto started to swerve from side to side and made obscene
gestures” and “we met the Punto again which started to brake in front of us, so that we
could not pass. I believe Mr. Attard took another direction to the hospital to avoid this Punto
vehicle” and “the Defendant made obscene gestures in our regard, and also at one moment
said the precise word fuck you”?

The contradiction: Mr. Attard the driver, on the same simple subject has declared “I did not
even know the accused was in front of me, I was told, in fact I did not even take down the
number of his car”? Mr. Attard also states in fact as he departed from under the Tunnel the
Punto turned left while he kept on straight.

The contradiction: Mr. R Briffa confirms that he met the Sierra and Punto near the traffic
lights at the Luxol Grounds and these vehicles drove towards the Tunnels as he drove to St.
Julians.

o Question: importantly if there was any semblance of truth in the descriptions of Ms.
Shepherd & Ms. Attard how can it be then that her own husband driving behind has
not seen this? Neither has another car of witness following the Briffa’s? And on this
busy road on a Saturday night no one reported this outrageous dangerous driving?

o Question: if the accused was as is falsely claimed swerving from side to side across
the road dividing lines and braking and blocking so the Sierra could not pass, how
could the now two rear seat passengers of the Sierra Ms. Attard & Ms. Shepherd
who are behind the Punto which obviously would have to be driving ahead of them
by their own assertions, possibly see the producing of any obscene gestures or hear
any vulgarities?

18
 o Question: how can Ms. Attard claim that near the Tunnel she saw these gestures?
While her husband has confirmed he was driving as fast as he could, the two cars
only came near each other exactly while the Punto turned sharp left while he
continued straight. Mr. Attard the driver of the Sierra has not stated that he took
another direction to avoid the accused?

o Question: one cannot hear spoken words in the Tunnels, the noise generated by
vehicles passing through the tunnels deafens out all other lower decibel noise, of
course this can easily be confirmed with a drive through etc.

Tristan honestly declares; At the Tunnels a vehicle from behind did approach at high speed, at first
the Defendant thought it might be the Police the next thought that possibly it was more men to have
another fight? So the Defendant immediately got into the left lane exit to go to the Sliema Police
Station, the left turn road is a very sharp left bend which while concentrating on the manoeuvre, a
white car sped on straight passed. There was absolutely no vulgarities shouted and neither any
obscene gestures made. This confirmed by both Ramona and Victoria and of the facts that these
false assertions presented by the complainants are simply impossible due to the nature of noise and
the insufficient time etc.

It has obviously eluded the police and authorities of actual reality that Victoria was a woman that
was ill and disabled, for God’s sake some astute common sense, would Victoria not have been
terrified if her granddaughters’ boyfriend driving her car was dangerously swerving all over the
road and suddenly braking, leaning out the window swearing and making obscene gestures for 2
kilometers? And of Ramona her car was her pride and joy, people get annoyed if you slam their car
door so for the authorities to simply accept the dangerous madness described by Ms. Attard & Ms.
Shepherd (despite the obvious contradictions) that Ramona would allow this behavior in her car with
her ill Grandmother demonstrates the total lack of psychological consideration the police and courts
applied in their investigation confirming their automatic bias and prejudices in persecuting the
innocent.

It has been exhibited throughout the ‘Innocent’ and this ‘Contradictions’ document that the
complainants have grossly contradicted themselves and each other, there is no harmony or
corroboration in anything they say, yet as proved if you look close enough (a judicial obligation) they
themselves prove the innocence of Tristan.

The authorities have ignored important required Articles and the virtues of Law, they have ignored
common sense and the cause of probability. They have omitted crucial evidence and have
manipulated evidence. They have manufactured false summarizations and theories. They have
undermined medical findings. They have repelled and dismissed and altered fundamental
corroboration and harmony between witnesses and the accused which unequivocally proves the
innocence of the accused.

Meanwhile of the complainants the authorities have tolerated severe inconsistencies, they have
accepted obvious Perjury and actions and demeanor ambitious in perverting the course of Justice?

In fact this is NOT Justice! It is certainly not the enshrinement to a democratic just and fair society.
It would appear to be a conspiracy, as Tristan and Ramona who have been together happily for the

19
last 11 years who have a darling daughter Ricarda just 6 years young now, who have for the last 8
years and still counting have been overwhelmingly dominated by this awful untruthful affair that
has and is in a nutshell restricting finances, the quality of life and our potential future life!

Therefore everyone with a sense of decency should do their absolute utmost to correct this gross
horrendous miscarriage of Justice, your duty to a Just and Fair Society which embellishes the world
you live in.

Yours truthfully

Tristan Scott Haynes

An innocent man condemned.

20