Game of Tones Exposing Fraud via Forensics and Linguistic Text Analysis

By 14 March 2019KEY ARTICLES

Game of Tones Exposing Fraud via Forensics and Linguistic Text Analysis

Published on 19th November 2017


Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP provides thought-provoking insights into Military Intelligence and Law Enforcement, how they operate beyond (as opposed to above) the law, and how their various antics foreseeably lead to the destruction of Fundamental Human Rights. Updates are in progress so check back regularly – verified articles end with . Please feel free to LIKE and SHARE

once I upload the additional evidence, the nature and scope of the fraud will be blatantly obvious 🙂


The Police and/or their Investigator agents are blatantly interfering with judicial proceedings that I am involved with in Singapore and Australia. When I am seeking legal representation even from UK Attorneys, they seem fixated with these non-UK jurisdictions and it seems that there is a deliberate attempt to fabricate something massive against me to cause me unnecessary hardship and ‘soften me up’.

I have worked with Law Enforcement agents who are part of Criminal Investigations (such as Intellectual Property Theft, Money Laundering), and Covert Surveillance (usually Electronic) is a very powerful tool.

However Police tend to stick to their protocols and apply them religiously. They are frequently too rigid in situations that are evolving against the wind. I of course know what these protocols are so identification of signatures is easy 🙂

I also record my calls and take people in directions that they do not wish to go in – my interviewing technique and unscheduled questions often exposes even the best without difficulty, and in such an insidious manner that they do not know what is actually going on around them. I can think incredibly fast when not having Transient Ischaemic Attacks 🙂

Police asking my Lawyers to Deceive Me

Lex Lies and Videotape

20170331 Two Case Studies - Singapoor Advice from Attorneys Peter Doraisamy - Duane Morris & Selvam LLP This must be the classic lawyer fraud. Whilst...

Paragraph (c) is ‘the classic Police-Sanctioned lie’. Should the Attorney be offering advice, requiring something or making an important statement, the addition of the Police Siren (and/or other sound effects, sometimes ‘drilling’, a ‘fire-alarm’, a ‘police announcement re crowd control’) means that it is a Police-Sanctioned lie.

This obviously means that the Attorney is following the instructions of a third party and not the client, and cannot be trusted any further. Allowing an obvious Conflict of Interest to arise, and then deceiving me is not something I will be tolerating.

The following example is from a call in November 2016 with Joe Hancock of Mishcon de Reya. As can be heard Joe wants ALL my data – obviously to provide it to a third party to determine whether my evidence is good enough to collapse an entire case. This is because this entire case revolves around (a) Police and/or Investigators stealing evidence, and (b) my evidence that exonerates me and (c) my evidence that nails the Police and/or Investigators for stealing my evidence 🙂

As it happens MY EVIDENCE IS GOOD ENOUGH and therefore I will not be providing to anyone ahead of the issuance of lawfully-issued judicial proceedings. I hope my friends at the Crown Prosecution Service and Independent Police Complaints Commission is reading this and my other articles…

Unnatural Conversations

This is a conversation between Anand Doobay and I. He was at Joseph Hage Aaronson at the time, is a friend and one of the best lawyers in the UK hands down. I have known him since 2008/2009 when I engaged Peters & Peters and these issues I have faze no-one.


However when a brilliant lawyer is not himself, it does confirm the existence of third party interference. When I spoke to Anand earlier in 2016 the conversation was different in nature. Shortly after the earlier call I noticed that Simon Vincent Breguet Thompson’s LinkedIn profile suddenly changed to include the logo of Joseph Hage Aaronson – forensic analysis of all the Melbourne Fraudsters’ LinkedIn profiles confirms these types of updates shortly after I speak to various lawyers.

The conclusion here is that my calls are obviously being intercepted in Sri Lanka and that information is being relayed to the various Fraudsters, who then go and send their garbage to the party that I have just contacted…

Calls subject to LPP should not be intercepted but they are.

When the Attorney is waiting for instructions during the call, then Paragraph (p) applies. Often the instructions come via sms (very slow) but regularly by a small device around the size of a Galaxy Note 4. This is connected to the internet or by radio frequencies. ‘What to say’ take a little time to appear on the screen.

A third party assistant can also appear in the background and also communicate to the Attorney to fill in the gaps in audio. Another example is ‘I can’t hear you’ which buys time and attempts to obfuscate embarrassing periods of silence.

There are two delays (a) for the question to be asked and communicated to the listener and (b) for the response to be typed by the listener. This leads to unnatural pauses which sound artificial to even an Average Joe! Simple questions take an age to be answered. An easy way to defeat this is to ask a question with a long preamble, though actually has a very short question.

That way if the Attorney was simply listening to the question in realtime, and was the actual party answering it, they would merely answer the simple question upon hearing it. However because of the time lags of transmission and reception, it is a dead giveaway. I asked the question this way deliberately.

Additionally an area that I have had specific training as part of CyberCrime Investigations is Linguistic Text Analysis (“LTA”). By simply reviewing the call in detail the following may be obtained.

The question (despite the long intro) was simply “Has he or his associates contacted you?” – that is a simple yes or no question. I made it broad enough to provide an opportunity to elaborate but I was expecting an answer first. There is a 9 second pause before the Anand’s response.

The response he provided was I’ve never heard of him.” Most people would not answer in the way that he answered, but they would state “I’ve not heard of him” if that was the type of answer. Using ‘never‘ rather than ‘not‘ has an air of dismissal to it and over-compensation, hoping that I would not ask further questions along this vein.

Whether someone has heard of Simon Thompson or not is not the question that I asked, and simply because someone has not heard of him, does not preclude ‘has he or his associates contacted you‘ whereas ‘you’ means the Firm as the question related to the Firm’s name appearing on Simon Thompson’s [LinkedIn] profile. The ‘provision of information‘ is the question.

My follow up question was in relation to Law Firms and my proposed action. It is framed ‘Has any party been in contact? That was an extremely broad question – meaning have you/Firm received any information about me via any party?

I was once against expecting a simple yes or no answer. The response is extremely specific, which is “No-one has been in contact with me about you.” So therefore it appears that ‘Someone has been in contact with the Firm’, and the Attorney is aware of this.

This unusual specificity is the classic sign of with-holding of information already within a person’s knowledge.

That is why I said ‘Perfect’ because the two responses confirmed that parties HAVE been in contact about me 🙂

By way of information the Firm itself could have received an e-mail or fax, a different Attorney at the Firm could have read it, and it could have been placed on a desk for anyone to read. I ALWAYS consider sentence construction, and specificity of answers.

Ananda is an incisive thinker, professional and honourable,

So when this position changes, I know that a third party is pushing him in a direction that he would not normally go in 🙂

So I have established that the Anand’s responses are not truthful from LTA. Actually if you turn up the volume and play the above recording, around 1:02 the ‘Police Siren’ can be heard. Anand was probably for that sound before he responded!!

Examining the waveform before amplification shows this:-

It appears that an audio device has been connected to the line (second segment)and is ready to produce the Police Siren. Once connected there is silence, until the noise can be heard from about the middle of the above screenshot.

The Amplified Audio gives this:-

The other issue with the Police Siren sound effect, is that because of the Doppler Effect, a natural situation would cause the Attack Phase (vehicle approaching) and Decay Phase (vehicle passing) to be longer. A moving Police car with siren blaring cannot avoid the compression of sound waves which leads to the change in frequency 🙂

This sound has been truncated for inclusion in the Police SoundBox – it has to be otherwise an interview with a suspect is being unnecessarily modified to the extent that the actual participants in the conversation cannot be heard. Or it would mean that the vehicle would be travelling at well over 100mph through heavy traffuc on the busy Streets of London!


Police lying to suspects to get a confession is lawful and extremely effective.


Police manipulating third parties into committing crimes against me, which blatantly Perverts the Course of Justice, is nothing short of ridiculous.

Police asking my lawyers and accountants to effectively interview me without caution is also foolish. Unless I have been cautioned I will say whatever I like which means nothing!

[further updates in progress…]


Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM