Innocence

A simple Guide to the factual Innocence of Tristan – Crucial Points:

Tristan Haynes
5/1/2010

The most important factor is undoubtedly proving my innocence which I have been declaring for the
last 8 years, currently I have been condemned to 4 years imprisonment for ‘alleged’ transgressions
that in reality never happened. Anyone has the liberty to propose or fabricate any kind of story
therefore it is appointed institutions of Law such as the police and the courts that are responsible to
decipher stories ‘alleged’ by professionally extracting the truth and with these ethical tools of Law if
implemented would prove by way of an actual time-line, medical evidence and testimonials in
corroboration with witnesses proves physically and absolutely that Tristan did NOT do the alleged
transgressions! This further exposes the lies and perjury being perpetrated by those who conspired
to tender these false allegations. In this case it further establishes the magistrates’ inability to
exercise these ethical tools of Law as if respect to the Law was actually honored as society relies
upon it to be I would definitely be exonerated from the obvious false and absurd allegations and be
found Not Guilty! The competence of the magistrate must be questioned and here follows a simple
guide to the facts why;
 1. It is alleged that I assaulted a certain Mr. Shepherd and because of the magistrates’ artificial
belief in this I have been sentenced to serve 3 years in prison for an assault that in reality
never happened which is categorically proved by all serious evidence;

Even in the magistrates own judgement which produces Tristan’s prison sentence, in this document:
[Deliberates page 33] ... “Joseph Attard states that he lost consciousness for a few seconds. This may
be the reason for his not having seen the assault on his wife and Shepherd; and the reason why his
wife and the Briffas and David Shepherd failed to notice Attard’s transient loss of consciousness”.

This proclaimed assumption in the magistrates’ findings is crucially contradictory to the facts as in
reality the Briffa’s who as detailed above are present and in actuality they did not see the alleged
assault on Mr. Shepherd during those alleged few seconds proposed by Mr. Attard and the
magistrate in her Deliberates, in fact the Briffa’s did not ‘fail to notice Mr. Attards transient loss of
consciousness’ what they actually noticed was a big man (Mr. Attard) fighting with the accused-
Tristan in front of the Sierra car while Mr. Shepherd was already lying alongside the Sierra on the
ground some distance away. The Briffa’s evidence in this regard is identical to Tristan’s & Ramona’s
evidence, total corroboration! While Mr. Attard’s contradictory 6 versions are proven false
therefore the magistrates’ findings and belief in him are entirely incorrect, meaning her judgement is
a miscarriage of justice!

These witnesses the Briffa’s evidence and the identical corroboration with Tristan’s & Ramona’s
evidence definitively proves Tristan could not possibly during the same few seconds as is falsely
proposed have assaulted Mr. Shepherd or Ms. Attard and that Mr. Attard was neither on his bonnet
or unconscious which all evidentially proves that the magistrates belief reasoning and assertions are
fundamentally wrong as specifically contested in the defence documents:

[Counter arguments page 15, labelled as Page 32 – [AB1, AB1 a, AB1 b] the magistrate is revealing
to hypothesis of the same exact instance of 2 seconds the only moment that Mr. Attard does not
know what the accused might have done during this brief 2 second duration as all other times he
was engaged with the accused for the 1 and a half minute that they fought. During these alleged ‘2
seconds’ are present all the Briffa’s who have emphatically stated that Mr. Shepherd was already on
the ground laying flat along the side of the Sierra towards the rear while a big man Mr. Attard and
the accused were fighting in a position in front of the Sierra some distance away. This positively
proves that (1) Mr. Attard was not unconscious for 2 seconds and (2) during the false supposed 2
seconds the accused did not and unconditionally could not have perpetrated any of the alleged
aggression on Mr. Shepherd or Ms. Attard a fact also corroborated by Ramona and the accused.

Which was explained in detail and submitted previously before the magistrates courts in the defence
documents: [Defence Submissions page 16,18,19,20] that the defence submits that there is one
particular moment, in a previous testimony, when Mary Shepherd states that during the fight in
front of the Sierra, her husband slipped and fell on the left hand side of the Sierra, thus confirming
that it may have been after all the accused did not perform those actions on the person of David
Shepherd. That therefore the defence respectfully submits that the other witnesses version of the
alleged events that led to the injuries sustained by David Shepherd are too contradictory and
inconsistent to prove the charge of grievous bodily harm against the accused beyond a reasonable
doubt.

2
That this is also confirmed by the testimony of Ruben Briffa, Saviour Briffa, Mariella Briffa and Tania
Briffa. All these witnesses have stated that when they arrived on the scene David Shepherd was
already on the ground, whereas the accused was fighting with Joseph Attard. ...According to Mr.
Ruben Briffa, they arrived on the scene when David Shepherd was already lying unconscious on the
ground, that there were two woman (Ms. Attard & Ramona) outside screaming and shouting and
there were two men (Mr. Attard and Tristan) fighting in front of the Sierra. ...According to Saviour
Briffa, there was a big man (Mr. Attard) fighting with the defendant and there were two ladies,
when we arrived the fighting stopped, everything calmed down. ...According to Tania Briffa, there
was a man on the ground and on the other side there were two men fighting. ...According to
Mariella Briffa, there was a man on the ground and two men fighting.

The defence respectfully submits ... these witnesses have all corroborated the accused testimony
that there was only one fight between Joseph Attard and the accused. These witnesses illustrate
that whilst Joseph Attard and the accused were fighting David Shepherd was already unconscious
on the ground, and on Mr. & Ms. Attards own admissions he fought only once with the accused.
This corroborates the accused’s testimony that he did not touch David Shepherd, as whilst he was
fighting with Mr. Attard, the Briffa’s had already arrived on the scene, and from then on the
argument with Joseph Attard and the rest in the Sierra stopped, and it became an argument
between the accused and Ruben Briffa.

That the defence, through the testimonies of the accused and Ramona Rodenas, has always
suggested that when the accused was fighting with Joseph Attard, he fought only with Joseph
Attard. When this fight stopped, thanks to the intervention of Maryanne Attard, who told the
accused and Ramona Rodenas to go, and of Ramona Rodenas who separated the two men and
accompanied the accused to his car, Ruben Briffa pulled over and came running in the direction of
the accused etc.

2. It is alleged that I assaulted a certain Mr. Attard and because of the magistrates’ artificial
belief in this I have been sentenced to serve another 1 year in prison for an act of self
defence which has never been denied and is categorically proved by all serious evidence;

Even in the magistrates judgement which produces Tristan’s prison sentence, in this document:
[Deliberates page 31] ...“Joseph Attard stated repeatedly, albeit in different words and expressions,
that after the first assault, he tried to escape from the accused by moving around the car, that he did
not see the assault on David Shepherd but saw him lying on the ground; that after this, the accused
caught up with him and assaulted him again”.

This proclaimed assumption here in the magistrates’ findings is crucially ignoring her own findings
illustrated in this document: [1.a. etc] that the Briffa’s were present and what they actually
noticed was a big man (Mr. Attard) fighting with the accused-Tristan in front of the Sierra car and
when they arrived the fight calmed down and stopped. A version corroborated by the accused and
Ramona as detailed.

The known ‘marker’ of action of Ms. Shepherd not being out of the Sierra vehicle while the Briffa’s
had arrived (as explained in detail in the document: Contradictions number 9) during of which Mr.
Attard and the accused were fighting in front of the Sierra vehicle strongly implies that Mr. Shepherd
had just seconds prior succumbed to an epileptic seizure or fainting? Proving most importantly that

3
Mr. Attard was not immediately on his bonnet unconscious and there was NO second fight between
Mr. Attard and the accused!

Question: is it not absurd and way beyond any probability to believe that a man Mr. Attard who
claims he was just in a state of unconsciousness, who had the time to take out a handkerchief and
wipe his eye, 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), who managed quicker to escape like this from the accused in the presence of witnesses
whom have not seen this?

The belief of the magistrate of the second assault is a fallacy as the facts in reality reveal there was
NO second fight as alleged, Mr. & Ms. Attard have both themselves confirmed that there was only 1
fight between Mr. Attard and the accused;

Additionally Mr. Attard claimed that while supposedly on his bonnet before his alleged 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”.

It should be abundantly obvious especially to those charged with the honourable duty as Keepers of
Justice that Mr. Attard proves unwittingly that Mr. Shepherd definitely was NOT then ferociously
assaulted previously during Mr. Attards feigned 2 seconds of being unconscious and the magistrates
assertion that Mr. Shepherd was assaulted during this alleged moment is unfounded. Question: as
how can Mr. Shepherd be heard to be talking if it was alleged and believed that prior he was
ferociously assaulted and unconscious?

Saviour Briffa 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
disputes both Mr. & Ms. Attards and Mr. & Ms. Shepherds versions and the magistrates while
corroborating the accused and Ramona, that a big man Mr. Attard was fighting in front of the
Sierra with the accused!

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?

Ms. Attard also establishes in the same manner that Mr. Shepherd was NOT then ferociously
assaulted during Mr. Attards claim of being on the bonnet unconscious for 2 seconds as she has
declared that her husband remained in front of the Sierra (not unconscious or on the bonnet), there
was no escape with the accused chasing after him and she brings major controversy in her V1: to her
husbands claim that he was immediately punched and landed on the bonnet unconscious before and

4
 during the alleged assault on Mr. Shepherd. She also undermines both Mr. & Ms. Shepherd’s various
accounts and the magistrates.

Whichever version is to be believed either V1: or V2: of which only one version can have elements of
truth as it is 2 descriptions of events described in the same exact moment in time? However they
both confirm 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: is dispelled as V2: bears elements of truth which should unequivocally exonerate the accused
as there are witnesses to the same incident thereby corroborating the actual performance thereby
exposing the exaggerations showing how deceitful and untruthful she and her co-conspirators
actually are from the obvious perjury being committed;

o 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”.
o Ms. Shepherd stated “he was jumping like sort of inviting them”.
o Mr. R Briffa stated “in fact he kept hopping like a boxer on a ring hopping like as if he
was challenging you”.

! As Mr. R Briffa and his party are present 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. There are 3 witnesses describing the same event in the same exact moment of time in the
same manner and not one describes that Mr. Shepherd was being kicked or that the accused was
raising, hitting or kicking with his legs! Which means Ms. Attard is proved to be exaggerating
deceitful and untruthful.

Ms. Shepherd stated that when her husband had fallen / that the accused threw him / that she
thinks the accused kicked him / that the accused kicked him only while he lay on the ground/ that
the accused did not punch him, he only kicked him? From which Ms. Attard told the accused from
afar (words) and he went into his Punto car?

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.

She also undermines Ms. Attards V1: that Mr. Attard at this moment was slammed on his bonnet?
She also undermines Ms. Attards multiple claims that she was struck by the accused before, during
and after the alleged assault on Mr. Shepherd. She also undermines Mr. Attards claim and the

5
magistrates that he escaped and the accused chased him etc. Question: if the accused went back to
the Punto car (and he did) preceding this however he definitely could not then have possibly by
any means be doing what the magistrate believed Mr. & Ms Attard alternatively claimed or what
contradictorily Mr. & Ms. Shepherd claimed. Why? Because the Briffa’s had arrived and were
present on scene and they witnessed Mr. Attard engaged in fighting with Tristan.

Mr. Shepherd stated that he was in a position 6 metres in front of the Sierra car and having said
(words) the accused in an instant turned on him doing the same Kung Fu movements as reportedly
done on Mr. Attard? However Mr. Shepherd has 4 distinctively different alleged versions of how and
what was supposedly performed on him? His version also completely negates Ms. Attards account of
this alleged incident specifically that she was not struck before or during from what he claims and
that Mr. Attard was found on the bonnet before he claims he was assaulted not after? He disputes
his wife’s claims that are not in unity with either, specifically that she claimed that he was not
punched etc? More 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.

All of the above culminates in excessive evidence of the absolute innocence of Tristan, the blatant
lies and misrepresentation of reality tantamount to perjury by those who created these false
allegations and of the magistrates immoral tactical abuse by creating a deceptive false illustration
of events in support of those making the allegations namely Mr. Attard, contrary to on the scene
present witnesses and their corroboration with the accused and Ramona which is unadulterated
legal evidence of actual reality meaning that the prison sentence ordered by the magistrate is
intensely corrupt.

It is important to note that both Ms. Attard and Ms. Shepherd were warned in court on many
occasions to reveal which of their multiple versions was the truth which is reiterated in the defence
documents: [Defence Submissions page 15,16]. This maybe the calculative reason the magistrate
has omitted them from a conclusive judgement relying solely on Mr. Attards versions? This being
contrary to the guiding principles of Law Article 637 of the Criminal Code, Chapter 9 of the Laws of
Malta, that despite in this document: [Deliberates page 30] she has stated “the evidence in this case
and the evaluation of the credibility or otherwise of the witnesses are crucial etc” endorsed with
Articles 630, 633 and 636 ...of those who have to judge the facts, regard being had to the
demeanour, conduct and character of the witness, to the probability, consistency, and other features
of his statement, to the corroboration which may be forthcoming from other testimony, and to all
circumstances of the case. None of these Articles of Law or the statement proclaiming them has in
actuality been taken into consideration. As specified in the defence documents: [Appeal page 10]
and in the defence documents: [Counter arguments page 1, labelled as Page 29 – [AA1] & labelled
as Page 30 – [AA2, AA3].

Both Mr. Attard & Ms. Attard have been definitively proven to have after the actual incident on the
10th May 2003 to have 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; which is reiterated in the defence documents: [Defence
Submissions page 2]. Which is further explained in detail in the defence documents: [Counter

6
arguments page 2, labelled as Page 30 – [AA4] how the Superintendant Simon Galea told the court
“I had this suspicion that these glasses, a piece of these glasses could have been planted there
during the night or early morning” etc. Question: why was no investigation initiated? Why has the
magistrate ignored the guiding principles of Law and her Statement made to such Law endorsed
with Articles ...of those who have to judge the facts, regard being had to the demeanour, conduct
and character of the witness, to the probability, consistency, and other features of his statement,
to the corroboration which may be forthcoming from other testimony, and to all circumstances of
the case.. As specified in the defence documents: [Appeal page 10,11].

It is imperative to note how deceitful and untruthful the complainants are, a testament to their
perverted and false allegations tantamount to perjury;

 Mr. Shepherd stated in the defence documents: [Defence Submissions page 13] with
regards to the alleged assaulted on Mr. Attard “the accused with the movements of Bruce
Lee, Kung Fu, hitting bum bum bum bum his friend Mr. Attard was skinned like a rabbit with
blood that his face could not be seen”? 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?
Which means Mr. Shepherd is exaggerating and dishonest.

 Ms. Shepherd stated in testimony: “that there was no talking between Mr. Attard and the
accused who hit him with a fist and turned raising his legs like those of martial arts”. As
stated in the defence documents: [Defence Submissions page 15] that Ms. Shepherd
suggests that the accused tried to kick Mr. Attard. The defence humbly submits that in all
the preceding sittings and testimonies, not one of the witnesses ever alleged that the
accused tried to kick Mr. Attard? Ms. Shepherd tried to put a bad light on the accused and
many a times contradicting her own previous testimonies and of the other witnesses. Which
means Ms. Shepherd is proved to be exaggerating deceitful and untruthful.

 Ms. Attard has stated in the defence documents: [Defence Submissions page 15] 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. This
version of Ms. Attard unequivocally exonerates the accused and demonstrates how deceitful
and untruthful she and her co-conspirators actually are, as reiterated in the defence
documents: [Counter arguments page 17 labelled as Page 33 – [AB3 No.3] where there are
witnesses to the same incident thereby corroborating the actual performance and exposing
the exaggerations and perjury being committed;
o 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”.
o Ms. Shepherd stated “he was jumping like sort of inviting them”.
o Mr. R Briffa stated “in fact he kept hopping like a boxer on a ring hopping like as if he
was challenging you”.

7
! As Mr. R Briffa is there the accused then could not have been kicking Mr. Shepherd etc! Mr. Attard
is not unconscious or on his bonnet! There are 3 witnesses describing the same moment in the
same manner and not one describes that Mr. Shepherd was being kicked or that the accused was
raising, hitting or kicking with his legs! Which means Ms. Attard is proved to be exaggerating
deceitful and untruthful.

It is against ‘Due Process’ and ‘Fair Trial Law’:

It is against procedural Law and that of a fair trial that the injury certificate or Doctor Brian Flores
Martin 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]. The magistrate insisted that the doctor had not given a tetanus shot to the accused, while
the doctor stated he could not remember? Despite a certificate of a tetanus shot as reiterated in the
defence documents: [Appeal page 18,19].

The magistrate passed a Decree contrary to common sense of maximising results from Ethical Tools
of Law? By allowing the complainants each to remain in the court room as each other was cross
examined?

In the magistrates Deliberates and judgement, in this document: [Deliberates page 1 - 29] the
magistrates’ summarisation from testimonial evidence is hopelessly factually incorrect. It is
absolutely impossible and unsafe to draw any conclusions correct from such a warped manipulation
of actual evidence, as explained in the defence documents: [Defence Submissions page 11]. It is
fundamentally corrupt for the magistrate to manufacture illegitimate theories and assertions in her
Deliberates such as;

 The Briffa’s did not notice? When in fact they did! And their account corroborates Ramona’s
and Tristan’s which categorically disputes the Attards & Shepherds account.
 That through immense tactile skill she managed to coerce from the accused that he is a
black belt practitioner skilled in the art of fighting etc. which he and Ramona tried to
conceal? As explained in the defence documents: [Appeal page 15,16] this is utterly false!
 That there was a second fight between Mr. Attard and the accused when all the evidence
including admissions confirms that there never was. The Attards & Shepherds are dishonest!

The Defence has proved that Ramona corroborates the accused version of events, and moreover a
thorough analysis of all the evidence shows that all other versions provided by the other witnesses
and the medical reports found in the record of the proceedings show that the most credible
version is that of the accused.

For analysis that definitively proves the innocence of Tristan and unequivocal illustrations of
inconsistency and Perjury from those making the obviously false allegations, continue with the
‘Contradictions’ document to free the innocent from imprisonment and hell.