I am Innocent

[Murray]

Watched it last night on TV1 at 8.30 - fascinating how a councillor can make dad liable for kiddie fondling when it was the stepfather. Sentenced to 7 years I think and finally released with life and parents life ruined (both died within 6 weeks of each other after he finally got compensated). Stepfather gets done and 18 months prison - seems unfair.

Anyway next Wednesday 01 April 8.30 channel 1 "in 2006 a 16 year old got into a horrific car accident with a police officer, and he was found guilty of careless driving causing injury and was ordered to pay $18,000 reparations" but was all as it seems - well worth a watch on how NZ's finest go about business

[JimO]

i watched that surly if the father got 6 years the stepfather should have got at least that

[pete376403]

Should have been some sort of sanctions against the counsellor as well. She was able to bring these allegations against the father, ignoring what the son said about the stepfather, father goes to prison, meanwhile the son is still being abused, and what does she get? Total name suppresion on the case so its not even possible to find out who she was or if she's still "counselling" some other poor bastards kids.

[Murray]

Yeah and when the kids turned round to say "it wasnt dad" She goes to the police and tells them this is typical symptons. Poor bastard and family - life ruined and as you say little said about the councillor apart from they got it wrong

[oldrider]

Should have been some sort of sanctions against the counsellor as well. She was able to bring these allegations against the father, ignoring what the son said about the stepfather, father goes to prison, meanwhile the son is still being abused, and what does she get? Total name suppresion on the case so its not even possible to find out who she was or if she's still "counselling" some other poor bastards kids.

Watched that too - probably one of the same counselors that put Peter Ellis in the jug and ruined his life!

Astounded by the sentence comparison of the father and the actual guilty step father - what planet are these judges from? FFS! :rolleyes:

[Virago]

...Anyway next Wednesday 01 April 8.30 channel 1 "in 2006 a 16 year old got into a horrific car accident with a police officer, and he was found guilty of careless driving causing injury and was ordered to pay $18,000 reparations" but was all as it seems - well worth a watch on how NZ's finest go about business

It looks like it might be the case in Central Otago (Alexandra) where a cop threw the proverbial u-turn in front of a car, then lied through his teeth to get the teenager driver blamed.

[Berries]

It looks like it might be the case in Central Otago (Alexandra) where a cop threw the proverbial u-turn in front of a car, then lied through his teeth to get the teenager driver blamed.
The IPCA report is on t'internet and worth a read.

[pete376403]

Yeah and when the kids turned round to say "it wasnt dad" She/he goes to the police and tells them this is typical symptons. Poor bastard and family - life ruined and as you say little said about the councillor apart from they got it wrong

It was a "she" the progamme was quite clear about that

[Big Dog]

Watched it last night on TV1 at 8.30 - fascinating how a counseller can make dad liable for kiddie fondling when it was the stepfather. Sentenced to 7 years I think and finally released with life and parents life ruined (both died within 6 weeks of each other after he finally got compensated). Stepfather gets done and 18 months prison - seems unfair.

Anyway next Wednesday 01 April 8.30 channel 1 "in 2006 a 16 year old got into a horrific car accident with a police officer, and he was found guilty of careless driving causing injury and was ordered to pay $18,000 reparations" but was all as it seems - well worth a watch on how NZ's finest go about business

It is unfair. But not uncommon to trade shorter sentences for no trial. Not wanting to put the boys through a second trial would be a strong motivator. Especially when it would be so easy for a defence team to challenge the accuracy and validity of any statements from the boys.

I don't recall any discussion of a trial for the stepfather, only conviction.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Tazz]

i watched that surly if the father got 6 years the stepfather should have got at least that

HA! Law ≠ justice.

[Delerium]

Watched it last night on TV1 at 8.30 - fascinating how a counseller can make dad liable for kiddie fondling when it was the stepfather. Sentenced to 7 years I think and finally released with life and parents life ruined (both died within 6 weeks of each other after he finally got compensated). Stepfather gets done and 18 months prison - seems unfair.

Anyway next Wednesday 01 April 8.30 channel 1 "in 2006 a 16 year old got into a horrific car accident with a police officer, and he was found guilty of careless driving causing injury and was ordered to pay $18,000 reparations" but was all as it seems - well worth a watch on how NZ's finest go about business

The scary part is this type of shit with the councillors is quite common.

[Reckless]

Watch the first episode On Demand thats a bloody tragedy as well.

I mentioned it here earlier in the Lundy thread


Jeepers I just watched that program "I am innocent" what a fucken fuck up that case was, and still is.
According to the TV they where actually told who really did it?

Then there's Mark Lundy that seems to have been cocked up from start to finish

Then theres the David Bain thing.

Then they fuckup their image over this 1k-4k tolerance thing.

I never ride with any alcohol, but this 1/2 ing of the drink limit is targeting the wrong people that's another cock up.

Then there's the big apology over the Roast busters thing today?

I aint no Police basher but the whole thing is a bloody mess isn't it??
Bloody sad the Police have made so many serious cocks ups they can make a whole TV series on them.

Would have started a new thread but this is KB?? Just sayin

[Big Dog]

HA! Law ≠ justice.

Justice is far harsher on those that plead not guilty.

I was not present a friend relayed that a lawyer has told them that if they are smart they will plead guilty. Do the slap on the wrist 6 months suspended sentence. Better than the > 2 years the police will push for of it goes to trial.

Fortunately for them the real offender (not know to them or me) pleaded to that and other robbery charges when they were caught doing another robbery.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Scuba_Steve]

Watch the first episode On Demand thats a bloody tragedy as well.


More so given that the cops were handed the actual offenders on a platter & refused to pursue them, this after they directed the eye witnesses to the scape goats constantly threatening them with prosecution for choosing the real offenders as to force a false conviction... I knew this was a miscarriage of justice, but after seeing this show now I'm questioning what they were covering up

[JimO]

well that was interisting

[Katman]

I've had my own experience of police lying under oath in order to gain a conviction against me.

Thankfully the Court of Appeal saw sense and the police backed down from a re-trial.

The cop was subsequently investigated and censured by the IPCA.

[Akzle]

The cop was subsequently investigated and censured by the IPCA.

good effort.
They normally just give me money so i stop writing letters, but that would be far more satisfying.

[pete376403]

Tonight's show - once again, the Police don't come out of it looking very good, do they. (even if they had assistance from the original defense lawyer)

[scumdog]

Tonight's show - once again, the Police don't come out of it looking very good, do they. (even if they had assistance from the original defense lawyer)

Gotta admit I cringe at some of the decissions of those far higher ranking than me....:pinch:

[JimO]

Tonight's show - once again, the Police don't come out of it looking very good, do they. (even if they had assistance from the original defense lawyer)
they should name and shame the first lawyer

[Reckless]

Haven't seen this one as yet as I'm on ebay buying bits for the bike build but I was having tea through Fair go.

Jeepers some scam artist used Don Brashes name in scamming a quite few thousand of an old ladies money.
The police didnt even call Brash to check the alibi and he got off the charges???
FFS Fair Go where the ones that called Brash? They where all just shaking their heads in disbelief??

[Murray]

Jeez another shocker - pick on someone weak and make the crime fit - shocker from the first lawyer but more shocking by the police - even DNA did not fit - another poor bastard thankyou NZ law force

[Scuba_Steve]

Hey but "if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about" :tugger:

[Akzle]

Hey but "if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about" :tugger:

...except the police

[oldrider]

...except the police

Looking more and more like that every day - not a good look! :oi-grr:

[unstuck]

Missed last nights one also, but from personal experience I have know for a very long time that just because someone wears a police uniform or judges robe that you can trust them to be telling the truth.
Great to see shows like this though, because it helps to wake up some of the people in society who blindly trust in our law enforcement to the reality that swearing an oath actually means shit in the real world.
Same goes for politicians too. Yet we constantly let them away with it as a society. Trust your OWN instincts, and do not believe someone is telling you the truth just because they wear a police uniform. There are also a lot of decent men and women wearing the uniform, again, use your OWN instincts. :Punk::Punk:

[Reckless]

Another Innocent man by the looks of it fights and wins.

This isnt a good look for the cops the judge certainly has a go at them. Even tells the employer to go after the popo in Civil Court??

Police 'biased' over off-duty officer's crash
Last updated 11:03, May 10 2015
A judge has slammed the police investigation into a crash involving an off-duty officer saying there was a "regrettable but available perception" that it displayed bias in favour of their injured colleague.

Police were ordered to pay over $40,000 towards Auckland man Graham Hohepa Anderson's legal fees in March after Judge Gerard Winter found police were "negligent" in pursuing a case that never should have made it to trial.

He earlier had found Anderson not guilty of careless driving causing injury and said the prosecution had not excluded the "reasonable possibility" that the October 2013 crash was caused by off-duty police officer Mark Hansen, who was injured in the smash.

In his costs decision, Judge Winter stopped short of saying it was a case of police looking after their own, though there was a "perception" that "out of sympathy for a badly injured fellow policeman the police unreasonably pressed on to prosecute Mr Anderson".

Though he eventually ruled that there was insufficient evidence to find the prosecution was in bad faith, Judge Winter said there was an "available perception" that the police investigation was "tarnished with bias".

The judge criticised police for calling one of their own officers as an expert.

That witness, Sergeant Mile Tusevljak, did not know of his duties as an impartial expert witness and was "negligent" in preparing his reconstruction of the crash, the judge said.

The mistakes "thereby produced a completely flawed analysis of the accident's cause".

"Beyond this negligence the fact that the "victim" was an off-duty police officer provides a regrettable but available perception that the investigation about the incident and prosecution of Mr Anderson was tarnished with bias."

Allegations of police bias were also supported by police "unreasonably discounting" evidence of an on-coming truck driver who had a "grand stand view" of the accident but whose evidence was in favour of Anderson, the judge said.

In finding Anderson not guilty, Judge Winter relied on evidence that Hansen was tailgating two cars on Sandstone Rd, Whitford and, on a two-lane section of road, pulled into the right lane to overtake.

At an estimated 110kmh he was confronted by Anderson's truck in his lane and rather than stop he "took a risk and crossed the solid yellow line dividing the east and west-bound lanes", the judge said.

The crash occurred when Hansen cut sharply back onto the right side of the road, his car glancing off the side of Anderson's truck.

"Mr Anderson should never have been put to a defence of this charge," the judge said.

He ordered police to pay 75 per cent of costs and said Anderson's employer should pursue police in civil court for losses they suffered.

- Stuff

[Akzle]

Another Innocent man by the looks of it fights and wins.

This isnt a good look for the cops the judge certainly has a go at them. Even tells the employer to go after the popo in Civil Court??

Police 'biased' over off-duty officer's crash
Last updated 11:03, May 10 2015
A judge has slammed the police investigation into a crash involving an off-duty officer saying there was a "regrettable but available perception" that it displayed bias in favour of their injured colleague.

Police were ordered to pay over $40,000 towards Auckland man Graham Hohepa Anderson's legal fees in March after Judge Gerard Winter found police were "negligent" in pursuing a case that never should have made it to trial.

He earlier had found Anderson not guilty of careless driving causing injury and said the prosecution had not excluded the "reasonable possibility" that the October 2013 crash was caused by off-duty police officer Mark Hansen, who was injured in the smash.

In his costs decision, Judge Winter stopped short of saying it was a case of police looking after their own, though there was a "perception" that "out of sympathy for a badly injured fellow policeman the police unreasonably pressed on to prosecute Mr Anderson".

Though he eventually ruled that there was insufficient evidence to find the prosecution was in bad faith, Judge Winter said there was an "available perception" that the police investigation was "tarnished with bias".

The judge criticised police for calling one of their own officers as an expert.

That witness, Sergeant Mile Tusevljak, did not know of his duties as an impartial expert witness and was "negligent" in preparing his reconstruction of the crash, the judge said.

The mistakes "thereby produced a completely flawed analysis of the accident's cause".

"Beyond this negligence the fact that the "victim" was an off-duty police officer provides a regrettable but available perception that the investigation about the incident and prosecution of Mr Anderson was tarnished with bias."

Allegations of police bias were also supported by police "unreasonably discounting" evidence of an on-coming truck driver who had a "grand stand view" of the accident but whose evidence was in favour of Anderson, the judge said.

In finding Anderson not guilty, Judge Winter relied on evidence that Hansen was tailgating two cars on Sandstone Rd, Whitford and, on a two-lane section of road, pulled into the right lane to overtake.

At an estimated 110kmh he was confronted by Anderson's truck in his lane and rather than stop he "took a risk and crossed the solid yellow line dividing the east and west-bound lanes", the judge said.

The crash occurred when Hansen cut sharply back onto the right side of the road, his car glancing off the side of Anderson's truck.

"Mr Anderson should never have been put to a defence of this charge," the judge said.

He ordered police to pay 75 per cent of costs and said Anderson's employer should pursue police in civil court for losses they suffered.

- Stuff

shock fuken horror.
More like, Well, duh.

[Smifffy]

They lost a lot of credibility from me when they came to interview me about a local murder, simply because I have a similar model vehicle to one that was relevant to their inquiry. The way they tried to put words in my mouth, or twist facts was frankly slimy. They still don't have the bloke they're looking for 2 years later.

I was expecting them to turn up and was happy to co-operate, not so sure I would next time.

[Murray]

They lost a lot of credibility from me when they came to interview me about a local murder, simply because I have a similar model vehicle to one that was relevant to their inquiry. The way they tried to put words in my mouth, or twist facts was frankly slimy. They still don't have the bloke they're looking for 2 years later.

I was expecting them to turn up and was happy to co-operate, not so sure I would next time.

Your lucky, I was at the red fox the night the owner got killed, rang them and said we saw some dodgy people hanging around outside and never got contacted again after that. The murder took place 45-50 minutes after we left