Of course the ‘prominent NZer’ has been found not guilty

1. So will the Slater be leaking the name?

   [Whether or not Slater risks contempt of Court by disclosing the prominent New Zealander’s name, or give strong hints to his identity, is between him, his conscience, and the judicial system of this country. Our concern is ensuring that we here at The Daily Blog meet the requirements of all Suppression Orders, whether it be the person’s name or any other clue hinting at his identity. As always, moderators and administrators will be vigilant to ensure that no one puts this website in jeopardy. – ScarletMod]

2. Will the prominent New Zealander return to the position whence he gained his prominence? Bet he doesn’t.

   • I doubt it, if he tried I’m sure our M.P, Winston Peters, would have something to say about that.

3. As much as my prejudices were against the prominent one there was always going to be difficulty in proving ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that they were guilty.

   There is no knowing how the minds of the jury members worked. Some may have had my loathing for him but found the evidence was not strong enough. Some have been fans of him (or his chief supporter) and the evidence did not have to be strong to find him not guilty, it had to be a million percent for them to find him guilty.

   Fortunately rich powerful people have to be treated fairly too. Some of them are scumbags no doubt. Some of them may get the ‘benefit of the doubt’ compared to a down and out from the wrong side of the tracks. What needs to happen for that to change? Is that intrinsic to our society or to human nature itself?

   Maybe now the prominent one can get a prominent job and use the experience he has had and do some good in society. I wonder if there is a vacancy in law and order or even Parliament? The fans of the person probably believed his innocence enough to trust him all along and so no doubt now would hold even greater store in him.

   Kia kaha to the victims. The trauma they have been through cannot be imagined.

   The supporters of the accused will say the verdict is one of ‘innocence proven’. If the accused had been on the other side of the fence would the call have been that being found ‘not guilty’ definitely did not mean being found innocent?

   I wonder if that sort of question is the stuff of Parliament’s Law and Order Select Committee and whether those appointed to lead such are those with sagacity and a certainty of being beyond doubt?

4. Protection orders, suppression to protect the innocent from a guilt that courts never found them of, or a crime that was a fiction, or at best clouded in mud, it’s sort of clear we need to protect something. From what is uncertain, from money, power, or male privileged, or is it protecting me from them, or, you from us, or, us from them, or, you from me.

   All in all, we need protection for our own good.

   Just shut up, and do as you are told…

5. It was nearly a hung jury, so clearly he was thought to be guilty by some of the jurors, if not nearly half. This was never going to be an impartial trial, held in the very town he worked in, where he likely knew virtually everyone involved in the process, given his former occupations. It reeks of a set-up, rigged trial. As a victim myself, I believe these poor young girls, by what was said and the way they said it, the sly, in-plain-sight behaviour, that’s exactly what they do. They get off on getting away with it while other people are around, makes them feel clever and powerful. Seriously, What normal grown man gives massages to little girls anyway? Is it me, or is that damn creepy?

   He may not have gone to prison, by the skin of his teeth, but he didn’t get away with it by any stretch of the imagination, when you think about, he’s still got to live around here. To be clear that isn’t a threat, just an observation.

6. Another well known person in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. Remember, where there’s smoke… at least this made it to court, unlike three ex ABs that are guilty as hell but became a classic 3 to 1 he said she said so Coppers got scared. Sad when the truth is not enough.

7. Hardly surprising verdict is it, given the “prominent NZer’s” connections?

   • Mary A, Fact : John Key turns up in Northland,(he generally avoids the place like the plague, unless there’s a by-election), and just out of the blue, for no apparent reason, during ‘A Prominent New Zealander’s’ first appearance at court this year, around the 15th of March, he turns up and does some opening at Marsden Point for reasons none of us have never heard of. Evidenced by the article in The Northern Advocate. A smart, intuitive lady is Mary A.

8. I don’t like the man, but why are we all so convinced he is actually guilty? We haven’t seen any proof. It’s called innocent until proven guilty for a reason.

9. This is not a surprise. Money, power and influence wins again. As we have seen time and time again in the last 7 to 8 years, the NZ justice system is completely corrupt and broken, and that has to be the quickest trail of this nature in NZ history to clear National’s close associate, and as usual, blame the young victims. It must of been a terrifying time for these young girls.

   • Indeed, hire a lawyer that has no compunctions about going feral on the witnesses – that’s rule number one. Ignore evidence just destroy credibility. Young girls vs experienced advocate are always going to get rolled. Tough times for the girls close relatives now, and they must be distraught. Where’s Garth McVicar when we don’t need him?

10. Thought this is interesting:

    According to the FBI you can spot a liar by what they say in their denials. Instead of saying I didn’t do it, they say I did not do it, they drop the contraction. Liars subconciously tend to stress their denial, for example:

    Bill Clinton: “I DID NOT have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”

    Diane Sawyer interview with famous murderer Scott Peterson:
    Diane Sawyer: “Did you murder your wife?”
    Peterson: “No. No. I DID NOT. And I had absolutely nothing to do with her disappearance. (He’s now on death row).

    This guy never took the stand but addressed the court before Jury deliberation.
    O.J. Simpson: “I DID NOT, COULD NOT and WOULD NOT have committed this crime.”

    A Prominent New Zealander: “If (they’re lying), or they’ve misconstrued, or they’re trumping up the situation, I can’t say. I just know what I have done, and what I haven’t done, and I HAVE NOT touched those girls inappropriately,” he said.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/78634658/prominent-accused-these-girls-are-no-shrinking-violets

    In fact if the normal speech pattern has allot of contractions and they drop the contraction on the denial that is considered extremely suspicious. Hmmm.

    • Really?

11. Ran the Rolf Harris/Jimmy Saville way of operating – in public and sneaky. If you see the Saville feel up om Top of the Pops you know this is a man who gets part of his jollies by sneaky public humiliation of girls. Think that the Government definitely ran interference on this to ensure the result but still had a hung jury for awhile so they took a fair bit of convincing and it was probably about level of proof.
    Feel sad for girls as they were not as protected as children should be and will have to live with the stigma until they can leave Northland.

Comments are closed.