STEPHEN RODGER & DUNCAN STANULIS v HMA

CASE NUMBER GA13008146

SHERIFF & JURY

1) SECTION 38(1) CRIMINAL JUSTICE and LICENSING (SCOTLAND)

ACT 2010

2) SECTION 16(A) FIREARMS ACT as amended, FIREARMS ACT

1988 & (amendment) FIREARMS ACT 1994

SENTENCE CHARGE (1) 3 YEARS IMPRISONMENT

SENTENCE CHARGE (2) 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT

The purpose of this narrative is to show that the charges in which we were
charged with did not take place and ultimately, no crime had been
committed.

The charges against us were preferred on the information supplied by the

crown witnesses in this case, namely Louise Gallacher, Eryn Mckecknie
and Sam Nisbit, who are all related to each other.

The information for the police and the crown to proceed on, solely relied
on the information contained within the witnesses police statements, and
this information/evidence went unchecked, by both the police and the
crown.

Police Scotland failed in its initial enquiries into this case to examine the
police witnesses statements against the CCTV in this case and this CCTV if
properly checked by the police would have seen and found that the
witnesses had deliberately misled them (police) from the outset and what
was contained within those statements was indeed false and malicious
fabricated evidence which did not correspond with the factual CCTV in this
case which recorded the full event.

The three witnesses in this case spoke of both vehicles being at Blackie
Street with one male allegedly wearing a balaclava or a hood. Witnesses
gave varying evidence in relation with one witness, Sam Nisbit giving
evidence that the Saab car reversed aggressively out of Blackie Street and
another witness stated the front of the Saab was face onto the passenger
side of the Corsa at Blackie Street, so straight away here you have
conflicting evidence from three witnesses, all who were in the Corsa.
The same witnesses then proceeded to state that they were pursued
along Haugh Road from Blackie Street with the Saab giving
chase/pursuing them.
Sam Nisbit and Eryn Mckecknie then state that they were blocked in by
the Saab by the Saab parking across the front of them, no one got out the
Saab.
The same witnesses then state they were followed to the traffic lights and
that a person then produced a gun at them from inside the Saab.
Both Eryn & Sam gave precise details of seeing a gun and gave identical
information/evidence in relation to this gun.

Page 1 of 12
The CCTV in this case does not support the evidence/information that all
three witnesses gave in relation to the alleged events at Blackie Street.
In fact, the CCTV in this case would supports and corroborate that the
witnesses had deliberately lied in this matter from the outset and indeed
this matter was a fit up.

The CCTV also supports that no offences, as charged took place at the
traffic lights, as again the CCTV does not support any of what the
witnesses have spoken about in the lead up to the alleged incident at the
traffic lights and of what allegedly occurred at Blackie Street.
The CCTV in this case clearly shows that both vehicles were NOT at
Blackie Street as described by these witnesses and this evidence from
these parties was indeed false, malicious and fabricates
information/evidence they gave to the police.

Had Police Scotland properly checked out this information/evidence given

by these witnesses against the factual CCTV in this case, Police Scotland
would have found that the witnesses had lied to them and this was done
deliberately by these witnesses.
Police Scotland failed to properly conduct investigations into what was
contained within the police witnesses statements and the actual CCTV in
this case and it would have been shown that witnesses deliberately lied
and misled the police in their investigations and indeed would have found
that No Offence had taken place as summarised by the witnesses in their
police statements.

Police Scotland have been negligent in their investigations from the outset
in this case and they failed to properly investigate the
information/evidence given to them by the crown witnesses in this case.
They failed to investigate properly the information given in the police
statements against the factual CCTV in this case and by failing to do this,
they allowed a trial to take place which should never have happened in
the first place.

Likewise, The Crown also failed to properly conduct its enquiries into this
case and they also failed to properly check the information/evidence given
by the witnesses in this case.
The Crown proceeded to trial on this case, based on the evidence given by
the witnesses to the police in the form of what was contained within those
police witness statements, again if proper checks had been carried out by
the crown, they would have found that indeed what was contained within
those statements did not concur with the factual CCTV evidence that
shows No Offence taking place as charged, and this would have led the
crown to question not just the police, but also the witnesses in relation to
the statements they gave to the police.

There was no material, physical DNA or other evidence to support or

corroborate the charges stated, and the charges were based on the
information given by the crown witnesses, that information can be shown
to be false malicious and fabricated.

Through the information, which had not been disclosed, in relation to the
witnesses police statements and not used in the trial, it can be shown that
Page 2 of 12
what was contained within those police statements was indeed malicious
fabricated evidence, colluded by all three witnesses.
The police statements were not listed as productions and not entered into
the court so that crown witnesses could not be cross-examined on them.

The Crowns case relied solely on this information/evidence from the

witnesses and it can be shown through factual CCTV in this case that the
witnesses deliberately lied to the police from the outset by making a false
complaint, perverting the course of justice and then committing perjury by
lying under oath during a trial.

Through the evidence in relation to the photograph contained within the

Blackberry mobile phone belonging to Duncan, it does show and
corroborates that Duncan had a mobile phone in his hand and not a gun
as described by the witnesses.

The SCCRC have independently had the mobile phone and photograph
analysed and it has been confirmed by the independent witnesses that
the photograph is authentic and was taken on the date and time as shown
in the properties, which is 29th April 2013 at 22.05.33hrs, the precise time
that witnesses stated and gave fabricated evidence that Duncan had
pointed a gun at them at the traffic lights.

The crucial evidence that was not put before the jury at the trial relates to
matters as described by the witnesses in the minutes prior to the alleged
incident at the traffic lights and it is this evidence that is crucial to this
case and it is the evidence given in those statements that the police and
the crown, without checking, proceeded to take to trial.

Please refer to the witnesss police statements in which they claimed,

both vehicles were at Blackie Street.
Both vehicles were sitting at the entrance to Blackie Street, the front of
the Saab being face onto the passenger side of the Corsa.
The Corsa was pursued and chased along Haugh Road from Blackie Street
by a person sitting in the back of the Saab wearing a balaclava or a hood.
The Corsa was blocked in by the Saab parking across the front of it.
The person in the rear of the Saab wearing a balaclava or a hood
presented a gun.

This information was given in the seconds prior to the alleged incident at
the traffic lights, and the CCTV in this case shows a very different version
of events and categorically shows that these witnesses made this whole
scenario up and did indeed fabricate evidence and misled the police and
the courts.

This evidence, and other evidence can be shown to false, malicious,

fabricated evidence and the CCTV in this case is crucial as it shows that
no crime was committed and it also shows that what the witnesses spoke
to in their police statements and also in evidence in court, did not take
place. The CCTV in this case is also crucial in showing that the witnesses
perverted the course of justice and committed perjury during a trial.

At this present time Police Scotland are carrying out an investigation into
Page 3 of 12
the perjury complaint that has been made against the witnesses.
A statement has been given by myself along with the evidence which is
available, that shows crown witnesses in this case made a false complaint,
perverted the course of justice and committed perjury.

Set out below is the charges that we were charged with and the relevant
information that we have which shows that No Crime was committed.

(001) on 29 April 2013 at Haugh Road, Glasgow, you STEPHEN ALAN

RODGER and DUNCAN STANULIS did behave in a threatening or abusive
manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm in
that you did enter motor vehicle displaying the registered number YE06 VKB
and follow Eryn Mckecknie, Louise Gallacher and Sam Nisbit, all c/o Police
Service of Scotland, Govan Police Office, Glasgow, then with a motor vehicle
being driven by the said Louise Gallacher and thereafter drive said vehicle,
behind the vehicle being driven by said Louise Gallacher and did with face
masked present a handgun or imitation hand gun at them CONTRARY to
Section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) act 2010.

In relation to this charge, a change was made half way through the
proceedings to have part of the indictment amended, AFTER the
CCTV in this case proved different from what the indictment stated.
The jury had seen this before the change was made on the
indictment.
The initial charges had been based on the information given at the
time by way of police statements and what the witnesses spoke to in
those statements.

Please also refer to the Summary of Evidence sheet in this case with
regards what was said in that document, and again what was stated
in that document was taken from a police witness (unidentified) and
this document also shows false and malicious fabricated evidence.
Police (Ds Stewart) has also indicated that what was contained
within the summary of evidence was indeed a error, but we know
this is not the case and DS Stewart is deliberately trying to deflect
this issue in relation to the matter raised in the Summary of
evidence.

The part of the indictment that reads

drive said motor vehicle behind the vehicle being driven by said Louise
Gallacher and did with face masked, present a handgun or imitation
handgun at them

This had been changed from

drive said motor vehicle alongside the vehicle being driven by said
Louise Gallacher and did with face masked, present a handgun or
imitation handgun at them

Page 4 of 12
Amendment of indictment.

(1) No trial shall fail or the ends of justice be allowed to be defeated by

reason of any discrepancy or variance between the indictment and the
evidence.

(2) It shall be competent at any time prior to the determination of the

case, unless the court see just cause to the contrary, to amend the
indictment by deletion, alteration or addition, so as to

(a) cure any error or defect in it;

(b) meet any objection to it; or

(c) cure any discrepancy or variance between the indictment and the
evidence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall authorise an amendment which changes
the character of the offence charged, and, if it appears to the court that
the accused may in any way be prejudiced in his defence on the merits of
the case by any amendment made under this section, the court shall
grant such remedy to the accused by adjournment or otherwise as
appears to the court to be just.

(4)An amendment made under this section shall be sufficiently

authenticated by the initials of the clerk of the court.

After viewing the CCTV and in my view, this should not have been allowed
to happen, as the original charge had been changed to suit the CCTV in
this case after the jury had seen it.
The charge had been made on the information given by the witnesses and
had only been changed half way through the trial, after the factual CCTV
in this case had been shown to the jury, therefore the wording on the
indictment should not have been allowed to be changed.

For this charge to be proved, it would need to be proved that we entered

the car and followed the witnesses as described. This did not happen.
There is no evidence that supports the witnesses were followed and
indeed the witnesses stated that they were NOT followed after the lights
changed to green and both motors drove off.
The CCTV in this case certainly does not show the Corsa being followed
prior to the lights as the Saab is seen on CCTV coming from another
direction and is not following the Corsa as described on the indictment..

This charge was preferred against us based on the information and

evidence contained within the Police Witness statement, which if they had
been properly checked against the factual CCTV in this case, would have
found that there was no evidence so support this charge.
Page 5 of 12
The witnesses did not and could not have seen us enter the Saab vehicle
at the time given, as the Saab was not even in the area at that precise
time as factual CCTV evidence in this case shows.
The Saab was not even in the Yorkhill area at that time, as we had been
coming back from the city centre so the witnesses could not say they seen
us enter the car and follow them as CCTV shows the Saab coming from a
very different location.
The witnesses were correct though that they did see us in tha Saab
earlier, but this was two hours before the alleged incident.

Please refer to witnesss police statements regarding their account of

BOTH vehicles being at Blackie Street and various matters occurring at
that point.
The CCTV in this case shows a complete different version of events as told
by the witnesses and clearly shows that witnesses maliciously fabricated
their evidence.

If reference/checks had been made to the witnesss police statements, it

would have been found that what the witnesses had indeed told the police
was false, malicious and fabricated evidence.
With regards those statements, it can be shown that this is indeed lies and
this evidence was not challenged in court due to the elements of the
information not being disclosed by either the crown or indeed the defence
and both failed to enter this information into the court and for the jury to
hear and decide upon.

The Police Witnesses statements can be shown to be false, fabricated and

malicious lies, and this original charge centred on the information the
witnesses gave in their police statements.
Police officers involved with this case failed to carry out checks in relation
to the information that the witnesses gave them and the police failed to
check the CCTV against the information given, especially in relation to the
seconds leading up to the alleged incident at the traffic lights.

Indeed the witnesses evidence/information into what allegedly occurred at

the traffic lights can be shown to be perjured and fabricated evidence as
the witnesses went into much detail on events prior to the incident at
the traffic lights seconds before the lights.
In evidence, the witnesses stated that they were followed from Blackie
Street by a Saab motor vehicle with a man with a balaclava or a hood. All
three witnesses stated this had happened.
They also gave evidence they were chased and blocked in prior to the
traffic lights, both Eryn Mckecknie and Sam Nisbit stated this in their
original police statements.

The evidence that they gave does also support our submission that indeed
these witnesses made a false allegation to the police in relation to these
matters and there is no credible evidence to support their allegations,
indeed the CCTV would indicate that the witnesses fabricated this
evidence from the start.

The information given by the three witnesses in relation to this matter

does show that they colluded with each other to get their stories straight
Page 6 of 12
and to corroborate each other, though they did not realise that the CCTV
in the area captured the event at the traffic lights, and matters relating
to just prior to the event does in no way support what the witnesses
stated had happened in their police witnesss statements and their
witnesses statements are indeed damming evidence which supports that
these witnesses fabricated their evidence to set us up.

The lead up information that the witnesses gave in their statements, just
prior to the event at the traffic lights, is of high significance and this
should have been robustly looked at by the police, the crown and also the
defence, where all three failed to scrutinise this information and also look
at the full CCTV in this case which would have highlighted fatal
irregularities contained within the witnesses police statements.
It has to be borne in mind that neither myself or Duncan did not get to see
or read the contents in the Police Witness Statements and we did not get
to know what the CCTV contained until it was shown during the trial, the
FULL CCTV in this case was not shown to the court or the jury and the jury
did not get to see the run of events, seconds prior to the traffic lights.
Had the jury got to see this, the jury would have come back with a not
guilty if the case, at that point, had not been thrown out by the sheriff.
By failing to disclose this vital evidence to the jury, the jury did not get to
know the full facts of this case.

Again factual CCTV evidence in this case dismisses all and any of that
evidence in relation to the events seconds before the traffic lights as the
CCTV shows the Saab within the frame at all times and does not reflect
what the witnesses had stated in their police statements about the events
just prior to the traffic lights.
The CCTV in this case shows the Saab coming out of Lymburn Street and
turning left onto Haugh Road, heading towards Blackie Street.

It disappears out of view for two seconds, which at that time shows the
black Corsa reversing onto the pavement on Haugh Road.

The CCTV then shows headlights turning in the middle of the road and this
is indeed the Saab and then shows the Saab coming towards the traffic
lights in a normal manner and does not put persons within the Corsa in
fear or alarm as the witnesses were not aware of our presence until the
Saab lights were flashed at them.

This evidence alone dismisses the evidence of the witnesses of the Corsa
and the Saab being at Blackie Street and being followed chased and
blocked in as clearly the CCTV does not support this in any way, which
then highlight that the witnesses did indeed fabricate this evidence.
The Corsa is then seen driving towards the lights with no lights on.
The same CCTV evidence shows headlights of the Saab turning in the
middle of Haugh Road, just seconds after leaving Lymburn Street, and
coming slowly up to the traffic lights. The Saab then stops about five-cars
width away from the Corsa, watching to see what the Corsa is up to, and it
is at this point Duncan is asked to get a photograph of the Corsa which
had been acting strangely throughout the night.
The Saab then comes up behind the Corsa and flashes its lights at the
Corsa as the Corsa driver did not have her lights on then after a period of
Page 7 of 12
73 seconds, both
vehicles drive off in normal driving conditions, the Saab after leaving the
lights, drives in the opposite direction of the Corsa.

The CCTV evidence does show and support the witnesses colluded with
their fabricated evidence and shows that the witnesses made this whole
scenario up from the outset and based on that, the charge (1) cannot be
proved as the evidence given by the witnesses for this charge to be
preferred against us can be shown to be fabricated and malicious as this
charge was based on the information given by these witnesses on events
prior to the alleged incident seconds before the alleged incident at the
lights.

The CCTV in this case, which recorded the whole event, does in no way
corroborate or support that we behaved in a threatening manner, as the
CCTV does not show any threats being made.
Again this assumption was made by the witnesses without corroboration.
The original indictment stated that we had come alongside the witnesses
in their Corsa, and again this information, falsely given as the CCTV shows
this did not happen.
Once the CCTV was shown to the court, the crown was allowed to change
the wording on the indictment to suit the CCTV. This should have been
objected to as the original charge was based on the information from the
witnesses in this case.
It then goes onto state that with faces masked present a hand gun at the
witnesses.
Again, this evidence was malicious and fabricated.

The evidence in relation to charge (1) came directly from the evidence
given by the witnesses in matters relating to following chasing and
blocking in from Blackie Street and prior to the traffic lights.
It is this evidence that can be shown to be malicious and fabricated
evidence given to the police by the witnesses and their evidence does not
accords with the factual CCTV in this case which clearly shows a different
version of events as told by the three crown witnesses.
The CCTV clearly shows that the witnesses lied in this evidence, therefore
charge (1) cannot stand due to the malicious fabricated evidence given by
the witnesses and this shows that charge (1) did not take place and no
crime, as told by these witnesses did occur.
The evidence given by these witnesses cannot be seen as credible or
reliable as their evidence clearly shows that they fabricated their evidence
from the outset and the CCTV in this case is crucial, in that it shows No
Crime, as described in both charges, took place and again clearly shows
the witnesses, in this case, maliciously fabricated their evidence, and in
doing so made a false complaint, perverted the course of justice and
committed perjury during a trial.

(002) on 29 April 2013 at Haugh Road Glasgow, you STEPHEN ALAN RODGER
and DUNCAN STANULIS did have in your possession a firearm or imitation
firearm with intent to cause a person namely, Louise Gallacher, Sam Nisbit and
Eryn Mckecknie, all c/o Police Service of Scotland, Govan Police Office, Glasgow,
Page 8 of 12
to believe that unlawful violence would be used against them;
CONTRARY to the Firearms Act 1968 Section 16A as amended by the Firearms
Amendment Act 1988 and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1994.

This charge again is based on the false, malicious and fabricated evidence
given to the police in the way of the witnesss police statements.
Again, the crown proceeded with this charge based on that information
which can be shown to be malicious and fabricated.
This charge is based on the information the witnesses gave to the police
in the way of their police statements, and again, as stated above, it can
be shown that these witnesses maliciously and intentionally fabricated
their stories from the outset in this case.

The evidence, which has now, became available in way of a photograph

contained within Duncans Blackberry mobile phone, does show that
Duncan had a mobile phone in his hand and NOT a gun as the charge
states, again witnesses fabricated this evidence to suit their needs.

Clearly this evidence of the blackberry mobile phone proves that charge 2
did not take place as described and shows that no offence as stated in
charge 2 ever took place.

Had this information been properly checked by Police Scotland and had
the police checked the witnesses statements against the factual CCTV in
this case, the evidence given in those police statements would have been
shown to be blatant lies and the Police, at that point, should have
investigated thoroughly the information given by the witnesses in this
case.
Police Scotland did not check the witnesss statements against the factual
CCTV in this case, had they done so, they would have found that the
witnesses had lied in their statements and this would have cast serious
doubt on the credibility and reliability of these witnesses.

There is also serious doubt cast on the witnesss ability to see anything in
relation to the matters raised given the night time conditions as it was
10pm at night, it was dark, poor street lighting and both vehicles had
tinted windows.

Not forgetting that Louise Gallacher had stated she could not see in the
car because of the tinted windows, so we are aghast that Eryn Mckecknie
and boyfriend Sam Nisbit were able to give detailed descriptions of a
person wearing a balaclava, describing that person eyes in detail, and
then giving specific detail on the type size and colour of the alleged
firearm.
This is all fabricated evidence on the part of the witnesses and these
witnesses have continuously colluded with each other to give perjured
evidence.

Not forgetting that Sam Nisbit in his statement stated that he could
identify all this in a space of 4-5 seconds, whilst crouched down in the
back seat of the Corsa, Eryn Mckecknie, being in the front passenger next

Page 9 of 12
to Louise Gallacher who stated she did not see a man with a gun.

If Louise Gallacher has stated she could not see in the Saab because of
tinted windows we do not see how the other two witnesses stated they did
see in and gave detailed descriptions as described above in relation to a
man with a balaclava and a gun, this is fabricated and malicious evidence.

The witnesses in this case were adamant that they see a gun in Duncans
hand and during their evidence they perjured themselves by giving
detailed description of the colour shape and size of gun and also the type
pf gun, and describing the gun had a
barrel.
Again, the witnesses had been given the chance at the trial to tell the
truth about what they had seen after the proposition being put to them by
the solicitor advocate, but again, the witnesses chose to further their
evidence with malicious fabricated evidence of seeing a gun and giving a
detailed description of a gun, knowing that the information they were
giving was indeed false and fabricated.
Both Eryn Mckecknie and Sam Nisbit gave detailed, almost mirrored
descriptions of the alleged firearm, and this was done by collusion by both
parties.

This evidence is indeed fabricated malicious and false evidence and again
Police Scotland failed to check these matters out during the course of their
investigations and had they properly carried out detailed research into the
CCTV and the police statements, the police would have found that again
the evidence/information the witnesses had given was indeed false and
fabricated.

Charge 2 was preferred against us based on the malicious and fabricated

evidence given by the witnesses in the way of their witness statements.

The phone footage in this case supports that Duncan did have a mobile
phone in his hand and not a gun, and the witnesses went out their way
during the trial to mislead the court and the jury by giving fabricated and
misleading evidence, evidence that they knew to be perjured evidence.
The witnesses had also stated that this whole alleged incident took
place within a space of 73 seconds, as that is the time frame for both
vehicles sitting at the traffic lights at Haugh Road at Argyle Street.

Given the conditions in which the photograph was taken on the blackberry
phone, these night time conditions also have to be considered in what the
witnesses had stated they had allegedly seen, i.e. a gun.
Given the night time conditions in this case and the position of the
witnesses within the Corsa as described by them, it would be near
impossible for Eryn Mckecknie and Sam Nisbit to say they seen a gun and
be able to describe that gun in detail as they did, within the time frame
described by Sam Nisbit as 4-5 seconds and it is impossible to get a clear
view of anyone or anything within that time frame at night time and in the
conditions described.

Eryn Mckecknie and her boyfriend Sam Nisbit colluded with each other in
getting their stories the same so that this would give their story more
Page 10 of 12
credibility to the police.
The CCTV in this case and also the phone footage contained within the
blackberry phone ultimately shows that these witnesses maliciously and
wilfully fabricated their evidence, both in their police statements and also
in the evidence they gave in court and as a result of this, they gave
perjured evidence in the course of a trial, under oath.

It cannot be argued or considered that Duncan had a gun in one hand and
a mobile phone in the other hand as people have considered.

The witnesses state in their evidence that they see a person sitting in the
rear of the Saab with his left hand around the headrest of the front seat
passenger seat and in his right hand he had a gun, so in this context
Duncan could not have a gun in one hand and a mobile in the other and
he would have no reason to do so.
Duncan is also right handed, so any object he had would have been in his
right hand.
Not forgetting, that if Duncan did indeed have a gun in his hand, then this
gun would have been right beside the left hand side of Stephens head and
would have caused damage, if indeed it had been a gun and went off.

It is at this point two witness gave detailed accounts, in very similar

nature, outlining the type, size colour etc. of the gun, and these two
witnesses boyfriend/girlfriend colluded by giving fabricated evidence.

The other witness, the driver stated she did not see a man with a gun.
The evidence in relation to the blackberry phone, which shows the rear of
the Corsa taken from the inside of the Saab corroborates and affirms that
Duncan Stanulis did indeed have a mobile phone in his hand and NOT a
gun at the time as described by these witnesses and therefore this
evidence supports and corroborates that Duncan did indeed have a mobile
in his hand and not a gun.

Had Police Scotland, from the outset carried out proper checks on the
witnesses and their statements and checked the information against the
FULL factual CCTV evidence in this case, it would have been seen as
obvious to the police that indeed the witnesses in this case had made a
malicious complaint, fabricated their evidence by colluding with each
other and subsequently came into court and gave perjured evidence
under oath.

Police Scotland failed, by wilful neglect, to properly investigate these

matters and failed to properly check the information that the witnesses
had gave to them.
The failed to check the statements against the factual CCTV evidence in
this case and had they done this properly, this would have saved a lot of
time and money and certainly would have saved a trial that should not
have taken place in the first place.

This full case was based on the perjured evidence given by the witnesses
from the outset and by the evidence; they gave in their police statements.
These statements were not checked by the police and were not cross
checked with the CCTV in this case which proves that what the witnesses
Page 11 of 12
stated in their statements is indeed fabricated and malicious evidence and
is in no way corroborated with the FULL factual CCTV in this case.

It can be proved that these charges were fabricated charges, given by the
evidence, from the crown witnesses in this case.
It can also be shown, through the witnesses police statements and the
FULL factual CCTV evidence in this case that the witnesses made a false
complaint to the police, perverted the course of justice by giving false
information/evidence to the police and also committed perjury by coming
into court and giving evidence under oath, the witnesses knowing, that
they colluded with each other to give this fabricated and malicious
evidence under oath, and by doing so, misled the court and the jury to
return a verdict of guilty (by majority) based of fabricated evidence.

Stephen Rodger
February 2017

Page 12 of 12