Wednesday, October 24, 2012


The Police's  claim, To Removed, A Crucial Piece Of Evidence, From The 911 Tape,  Is Also To Be Appealed.

TORONTO POLICE ACCESS AND PRIVACY: "We Cannot Release The Tape 911 Tape, With The Accused Comments, It Will Be Edited Out, To Protect His Privacy"


If the public is wondering, why, the 911 tape of the victim's call, to the police, on July 9, 2012
which also included the accused comments, as well, specifically, his threats to kill, or to injure someone, or an animal. The police has decided to edit that portion out of the 911 tape.

They have the nerve to tell the victim, that, she also needed the accused written permission, to have his comments, of his death threats to the victim, included in the 911 tape, otherwise it will be edited out. "To protect his privacy"!  This, according to the manager, of the access and  privacy department, Katie Watts, on October 24th, at the Toronto Police headquarters, and also to the victim in this case, Valerie Guillaume, who had requested the 911 tape.  Releasing the 911 tape of Hugues Idholo's statements, of his death threats, would also be a violation of his privacy, the police is claiming.  Is it just me, that thinks that there is something wrong here? regarding the police's statement?

The key to getting a conviction, against the man, Hugues Idholo, was also the self incrininating statements, that he also made, that was caught on the 911 tape, during the victim's call to the police. If the police edits it out, as they say, that they will also do, in order to protect his privacy, then that evidence is also lost.  The victim was also told by the Access and Privacy Commission, that, should the police, not provide the full 911 tape, their decision, to edit the tape, can also be appealed.

But the public is left wondering why the police would also make such a decision in the first place?. If someone is caught in the very act of committing a crime, such as making a death threat, does the police then have the right, to remove that evidence, if it was caught on a tape, as was the case with the Hugues Idholo case?.  Isn't that's what is also needed for a conviction? The accused own self incriminating statements?  Doesn't the police have a responsibility, also, to protect the interest of the public and not the person, who has committed the crime, in this case?

There is also no copy of the 911 tape of the accused comments, with the court either. The police claim that they had also provided, a copy of the 911 tape, to the court and this is also not true, since there is no copy of such a tape in any of the court's record office. The exhibit office, of the court, for instance, has no copy of the 911 tape, and has never recieved any according to them, from the crown attorney's office. The 911 tape would have also been a crucial piece of evidence against the accused, at a trial. Both the crown attorney's office and also the police has kept this piece of evidence, from the court.

Accordingly, both the police's disclosure and also the crown's brief, if you can also believe this lie, about the crown attorney's personal notes, being given directly to the police, in regards to the case, that were also sent back to the police and the police is now saying, that, they can only release, an edited version, of the 911 tape, that would also not include, the accused own comments, that was also caught on the 911 tape. The self incriminating statements, of his death threats, to kill the animal of the victim. And to also attempt to get away with his actions. Both the police and the crown attorney's office, also made sure of that, after withdrawing the charge, against the accused, Hugues Idholo. The victim also received, no apology, contrary to what the police has also claimed, to be a part of the condition, of withdrawing the charge and for him to also attend anger management. Neither of which he has also apparently done, in this case.

The man is apparently also trying to achieved some kind of status, in Canada, despite his violent nature. A condition which would also disqualify him from remaining in Canada. Obtaining landed immigrant status in Canada, is also somewhat of a long process, which is intented, to exposed those who may also break the law, during that time. There is no more convinving evidence against him, than his own violent actions in this case, regarding his death threats to the victim, to kill her animal and where he has also shown no remorse, whatsoever, for doing so.  And which the police is also trying to cover up, or to prevent, from hindering this process. There is also his other actions, of using different identities, to suit whatever other purpose he also wants to achieve, at that moment and with the police also going along with it, even to the point of trying to decieved the court, regarding that, directly. But what about the victim in this case and also the police legal obligation to uphold the law?

The police is also trying to make a mockery, of justice in this case and there is also no other recourse, left to the victim, but to appeal the police's decision, to edit the 911 tape, containing the evidence against the accused. And also to put public pressure on the police, to release the full tape, of both the victim and the accused statements, in this case.