Segment 9

Gloucester County Case Update - Sgt Paul Emanuele

So let's again revisit his incident report for the events of May 4th, 2010 along with his involvement.

Now let's look at Sgt Paul Emanuele's statement above. He was at the victim's address assisting numerous Animal Control Officers with a search warrant. Let me repeat this. Sgt Paul Emanuele was assisting Animal Control with a search warrant. Okay. I'll buy that for now. Keep in mind, Sgt Paul Emanuele is a very sharp guy.

Now right above is Virginia law showing who has the power to do what. Only a Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff or a Police Officer has the power to conduct the search. Not Animal Control. Looking above again at Sgt Paul Emanuele's own report, he was dispatched to this location and did not have previous orders to be there to serve a search warrant. His own statement is that he was there to assist Animal Control, not head the search according to Virginia Law. Is Gloucester County really going to try and argue that Sgt Emanuele made a mistake on his report? Remember, this guy just made Sargent so you know he is very sharp. We believe this is Proof once again that there was no search warrant in place at the time both Animal Control Officers were there and the Gloucester County Sheriff's office was there. (We now know by what Gloucester County sent us, there was no valid search warrant at that time).

In our opinion, Sgt Paul Emanuele got caught up and sent into the middle of something very nasty. He was doing the best he could in trying to produce something that matched the official story that the powers in Gloucester wanted told, and at the same time keep himself out of the middle of it all. He has had to walk a very thin tight rope. You have to feel sorry for this guy.

Gloucester Illegal Search Warrant? Last Words, Maybe

For the most part, we consider the argument about the search warrant over. In our opinion, the search warrant is in fact fraudulent at every level and at every angle of argument. The reason we bring it up yet again is for two reasons. One, there is still another area where the search warrant was not valid, and two, is because this is where the next part of our story begins. So we are going to detail one from above and show yet another angle where the search warrant was never valid. If you have not been following this story, you need to start from the beginning to play catch up. There are two affiant's to this search warrant which is perfectly legal. The original affiant's identity does not have to be legally disclosed to the defendant. No issues here at this time. We have already argued that the original affiant was not a trustworthy affiant. What we have not argued, because we did not have the information until now is that the original affiant's affidavit could have only given both Animal Control and The Gloucester County Sheriff's Office, access to the inside of the house and no outside areas whatsoever if the original affiant was even considered reliable.

Remember, we already stated that the defendant/occupant - victim, never received a copy of the affidavit attachment that was required by law. What is also interesting is that the victim's attorney did get a copy of the affidavit but refused to show it to the defendant/occupant - victim, the attorney being, Michael T Soberick. The victim has just seen it for the first time ever, today. The search warrant was written out as follows, areas to be searched - a single family dwelling, it's curtilage and environs. The so called search warrant was written way to broadly to be valid based on the original affiant's complaint. Funny thing is, Mike Soberick saw this and both the victim and husband argued that the search warrant was not valid with him on other areas, never even knowing about this area. I have yet to see any part of this search warrant where anyone can state it is valid and actually mean it.

Due to the nature of the confidential information on the affidavit, we are not posting it. It will be made available only to the following entities.

1.) Law enforcement - No Conditions or exclusions of facts

2.) News Agencies - Conditions that certain information be kept confidential. Details upon request.

An area we find very interesting is that it was Judge Jeffrey W Shaw who heard this case. The Honorable Judge Shaw and Michael T Soberick, Esq. were once law partners. Hmm! So what am I getting at? It's just an observation............................Maybe.

Now could it be that the reason why the search warrant was written much broader than it should have been was because of some kind of vendetta? A case can be made for that. The real reason though exists in the DW_C0152 audio file. The file we have shown in our forensic audits to not be valid in our professional opinion. Can you guess yet what our next story is going to cover? DW_C0152 audio with an included forensic audit report showing where the concept for how the search warrant had to be written came into play and the forensic report showing how the audio was doctored in this area. It's really pretty hilarious when you hear the forensic audio. You get to hear how the organic background changes in the middle of the conversation. It's not possible for that to happen unless of course you alter the recording.

Did we mention the go to person yet who creates these audios for Gloucester County?

Wait; The legal stuff. Our lawyers wanted us to mention that we are not lawyers. So here it is. We are not lawyers. Now our lawyers are happy.