Page 2 - ref C_PBC to BEGG Prejudice PLUS

I fully appreciate you say “If you listen carefully there is some music at the very beginning of your record- ing. Mrs Hillgarth does not recall any music in your flat; this was after all a board meeting. You were doing all the talking – and very quickly - with someone whose accent Mrs Hillgarth does not recognise. You say at one point: “We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the lease- holders”. Mrs Hillgarth certainly has no recollection of that conversation and believes it is a fake and/or “doctored” sound clip and/or taken completely out of context.”
2
Seeing as your Johnny Arthur “expert” analysis states: “The clip [coup de grace] appears to be two non-contigu- ous crudely edited together.” He adds: "there is a very distinctive room tone (a high frequency ring at around 2300 Hz), that is only audible while Mrs Hillgarth says the words, “and then everybody will be happy.” This sug- gests that this comment was recorded in a different location to the rest of the dialogue.”
Note: she actually says “well then everybody will be happy” and not “and then everybody will be happy.”
He further adds: “In addition to the room tone, there is an audible click at the end of the edit. (Clicks are
caused when audio is edited together incorrectly, without proper use of crossfades). Again, with careful listening this can he heard in the original file, although in addition, it can also be seen visually in a Spectogram view of the audio.”
Note: Mrs Hillgarth [multiple clicks] is simply flipping paper on her lap as can be heard throughout lengthier clips.
But far more relevant is Mrs Hillgarth’s initial rebuttal of this whole audio recording, namely: Mrs Hillgarth does not recall any music in your flat; this was after all a board meeting. You were doing all the talking – and very quickly - with someone whose accent Mrs Hillgarth does not recognise. You say at one point: “We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders”. Mrs Hillgarth cer- tainly has no recollection of that conversation and believes it is a fake and/or “doctored” sound clip and/or taken completely out of context.”
Note: she makes no mention of “will be used for something else”, followed by “well then everybody will be happy.” but simply no recollection of me saying “We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders”.
So exactly what is her rebuttal of this particular short clip (coup de grace) - no recollection? fake or doctored - but which wording - me saying “We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders”, or her saying “will be used for something else”, followed by “well then everybody will be happy?” or one or more of them taken out of context? We have already proved music was playing (clip was sup- plied), that the unrecognised accent was that of Segar Karupiah and lengthier clips prior to this short clip prove conclusively all well in “context”.
Our two sourced independent “expert” analyses confirm the authenticity of both the short “coup de grace” audio as well as a lengthier clip prior to the statements made by Mrs Hillgarth, establishing without doubt that music was playing, multiple clicks were caused naturally by paper turning and it was not possible to have edited in Mrs Hillgarth’s comments due to firstly the background music requiring syncing and more pertinently, her comments had voices over her comments making “doctoring” impossible.
As such we consider Mrs Hillgarth’s denials to be totally fabricated and her denial on oath at the First Tier Tribunal on 26th June 2017 in front of witnesses to be perjurious (the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry).
Consequently, alongside the disproven accusation that MHML denied access to legitimate requests from Mrs Hillgarth and other named [by her] lessees (as evidenced by her own admission in para 73 of her Witness Statement) to view documentation from our 2014 Accounts, and the audio recording of the whole 23 May 2014 Board Meeting which included lengthy discussion between those present (Mrs Hillgarth, Segar Karupiah and Paul Brown-Constable) regarding [inter alia] works’ budgets, works’ quotes and contractors, savings to be attempted, unaffordable items as sourced by Mrs Hillgarth [Wade quotes] and savings once made would be used to fund the unaffordable [Wade] additional works - resulting in Mrs Hillgarth exclaiming after hearing Mr Brown- Constable say: “We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders”, “will be used for something else”, followed by “well then everybody will be happy?”
There therefore was no need whatsoever for Mrs Hillgarth to have progressed an eighteen month vendetta against MHML as the [only] request for documents, although well out of statute, was agreed to be fully complied with in our response to her solicitor’s letter of 23 March 2016 in our reply by return on 1st April 2016.
This offer to fully comply was ignored and offer withdrawn until such time as other erroneous accusations were acknowledged as mischievous once controvertible proof of their mischief was supplied. It was supplied but again no acknowledgement was ever received as to it’s validity and authenticity - as indeed the audio is again evidenc- ing your client’s dishonesty and her denial despite witnesses present and bizarrely a denial of common sense?
No doubt Johnny Arthur will confirm both education and qualifications under oath regarding his expert opinion and Mrs Hillgarth will again under cross examination on oath deny her comments. But which ones?