GUEST BLOG: My Son has been wrongfully convicted of rape – Part One

54
16430
Jackie & her Son, Jamie.

I will never forget the screams of my son, when they decided he was guilty. The cries of my daughter in law, the look on my husband’s face, I was in complete shock. If all the evidence was allowed to be heard, we would never be in this predicament. Leaving court that day without my son is a pain that rattled me to my core and will haunt me for the rest of my life.

Delving back to memories of the trial is a place that I never wanted to relive again. However, it is a story that I feel I need to tell and that others need to hear to protect their sons, fathers, uncles and partners who may face a similar battle. No one should have to endure the pain and the suffering my family has had to go through.

It was like a funeral taking place, my son had just died and we were burying him. All I could think of was that they have got this so so wrong. With all the evidence we had, there was not even a chance my son should have been taken away from us in this way. As the verdict was read, I remember saying out loud “don’t worry, the truth will come out.” This was the one and only thing the newspapers printed from our side of the story.

What many of the New Zealand public do not know is that not all the evidence that occured on the night of an alleged charge is seen or heard. I had always believed that ALL of the evidence is presented before a jury before they come to an informed decision. I was completely wrong….so how can it be a fair trial by jury when big chunks of evidence are withheld?

On our trips to and from court during the trial, Jamie and I would talk about how we couldn’t believe which evidence was deemed inadmissible. It was crucial information that told the full story and would completely quash the Crown’s argument. Jamie would tell me ‘don’t worry, the other officers were there and will tell the truth’… Only one made an attempt, but his side of the story was barely heard. Most of the relevant conversations that night including the one between him and Jamie were deemed inadmissible.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Over the weeks of the trial, it was difficult to hear Fiona Culliney; the Crown Lawyer, using inflammatory and inappropriate language which is usually disallowed in a courtroom. Pointing at my son while looking at the jurors and creating a narrative that he “helped himself” and that he was “creeping across the court yard with a sense of entitlement” in an attempt to falsely characterise him as someone he was not. The Crown was confident to use such language as they knew evidence to disprove their argument was inadmissible. They also knew that a large portion of this evidence was and still is suppressed to the public. This makes it more difficult for us to portray the full story.

I remember a day in court where two forensic specialists were brought in for questioning. Comprehensive DNA testing and swabs were gathered by each of these experts. When questioned in court, one of the forensic specialists said they had never done a case with this number of tests before. The results showed that no evidence of Jamie’s DNA was found. Knowing this proved the truth, I wasn’t the only one dismayed to hear the Crown debating minor details which was irrelevant to prove an alleged rape in which even the Judge intervened with questioning. The simple fact that DNA was NOT found should have been the underscoring takeaway, however with all the back and forth, I believe it left everyone bemused.

After each day, the media would jump on board using the inflammatory words of the Crown Lawyer in their articles but nothing about the fact that none of Jamie’s DNA was found. This was not a suppressed subject. It didn’t offer the public the full story and it unfairly painted a picture of guilt before a trial was even complete or a jury had made any decisions.

I suppose it comes down to who could sell the best story right?

I lost count of how many times I was asked to leave the courtroom (hours on end) while the Crown lawyer argued for certain evidence not to be shown to the jury. It baffled me that crucial evidence occurring that night, supporting Jamie’s argument, could be deemed inadmissible simply because of reasons I can’t share due to them being suppressed. I need to reiterate that the evidence that was deemed inadmissible happened on the actual night of the alleged charge. As the trial progressed, we heard of more and more evidence that was not allowed to be advanced to the jury. Our hands were tied behind our back. If Jamie was to take the stand, he was not allowed to give evidence on pivotal conversations he had had over the course of the night or show relevant parts of CCTV footage to outline his points.

We all know the saying ‘innocent until proven guilty’. This was definitely not the case. Before we even got to speak and share our evidence (what little was allowed) we were on the back foot, fighting for Jamie’s innocence. My son worked for the New Zealand Police for 8 years. He served his community and was a great cop.

At one stage of the trial, one of the senior detectives came out of the courtroom where I was sitting in the foyer. This was when the complainant was in Court and no one else was allowed in the public gallery. The detective was working with Fiona the Crown Prosecutor when he walked out. He looked at me, he knew I was Jamie’s mother. He said “I’m over this”. This is something that I will always remember because it indicated to me that he knew, as well as I did, that something was not right.

As the verdict was being read, I couldn’t believe it. My son that I had brought up to be a good man, the kind guy who would help anyone no matter what, was being told he was ‘guilty’ for crimes he did not commit. This felt like a horrific nightmare, I was in utter shock. Jamie was yelling out and looking at me saying ‘Mum?!’ while his wife was sobbing, repeating ‘he didn’t do this!’ Jamie’s father had to walk out of the courtroom.

As hard as it was, I replied to Jamie ‘You turn around and you look at him’ – meaning for him to look at Judge Thomas. ‘You look at him’ and hold your head up high, hold your mana. I have always been taught to hold yourself in a way to respect all people, even if they have done you wrong. I have taught my children to never forget who they truly are, it is the one thing that nobody can take away from you. As I put my arm around my daughter in-law’s shoulders, I turned my head to look at the three detectives who were sitting directly behind us. They had their heads down looking at the floor.

As the Judge began thanking the Jurors for their time over the past few weeks, I remember how he spent the next 8 minutes talking over the crying. He thanked the jury for taking Jamie out of society. It was baffling to me as he had seen all the evidence that was inadmissable and would point them to Jamie’s innocence.

As I was leaving that Courtroom I felt lost. We still believed that Jamie would be coming home with us that day. Unbeknownst to us, the journey ahead from here was only going to get a lot harder.

The reason I decided to write this was simply because I do not want another mother or family to go through what we are going through. A system that has wronged us as a family, and as a nation. This is our story; I cannot stay silent any longer. If I can change one thing to make it better for someone else, then it’s worth the fight.

I feel it is imperative that I enforce that I in no way support anything to diminish the trauma of a genuine victim. I think rape is one of the worst things a human can do to another human. I despise those people. But that’s also why I need to tell Jamie’s story. To free him from a label he doesn’t deserve.

This was my experience of the trial. The journey didn’t stop there though.

There is more to this story, some of which I cannot speak on due to suppressions of evidence, and most of which the media never reported on – whether by choice or by command.

Our story needs the truth to be told – so we can then create change for a better future

Jackie is a hardworking mother and grandmother; she is also the Managing Director of her own business. From humble beginnings, Jackie endured hardships during her childhood, spending time in Women’s Refuge and working from a young age to help support her mother and siblings. She has been married for 26 years and resides on the Hibiscus Coast with her family.

 

 

54 COMMENTS

  1. I’m so glad the other side of this story is finally being told. Kudos to the Daily Blog! Jamie is such a good guy. Him and his family don’t deserve this. I hope this becomes the start of real justice and a change in our broken systems. I applaud Jackie for her strength to stand up and speak out for her son.

    • Jamie is such a good guy? Well based on the agreed facts, at best he was cheating on his wife who was at home with their baby, at worst he is a rapist.
      Neither of those things equate to a good person in any way, shape or form.

      With his lack of giving evidence on defense at his own trial, it speaks volumes. Judge and jury got this one right

      • Maurice – how do you know the wife was home with a baby?
        How do we know that the victim wasn’t cheating on her husband ?
        Cheating on your wife doesn’t mean you deserve prison time. Millions of men cheat on their wives, what does that have to do with this wrongful conviction and case with all the missing evidence that couldn’t be shared in court ?

      • Good people make mistakes. No one is perfect. He’s always been a good guy to me and my family. It’s not my place to judge his relationship. That’s between him and his wife.

        I think Fred’s comment below was good. His wife, as the ‘injured party’ as he put it, stands by him in this fight. She would’ve seen all the inadmissible evidence and was at the court everyday. I think that shows her knowledge of his innocence.

        I saw Sally replied this already to your same comment about him not taking the stand below but she had a good point.

        There clearly are suppressions and a lot that he wasn’t allowed to speak on. So I don’t think if he’d taken the stand there would’ve been much he could’ve said in his defense. He was kinda silenced.

    • Thanks for this link. Downloaded and printing now. I was an avid reader of the National Times when I lived in Aussie. Say what like about Aussies.( they can be utter bastards) Australia still produces great journalists even today.

  2. Sadly justice seems to be politicised in NZ. I don’t know whether this man was guilty or not, but I do know of another case where another man was found guilty of historical spousal rape, which again seemed to have personal motivations. The man who had many drug problems and his spouses also had many drug problems. Historical memory, lots of drug use, legal aid defender, and a police officer who was a relative to the rapist and had a previous grudge, desperate to make a case….

    Rape is something that needs to be addressed as it is often an un reported crime, BUT, my instincts are that the crown is so busy trying to create better statistics in rape cases and there are increasingly people out there who enjoy making things up or (as has been shown in the Peter Ellis case) start believing truths that don’t seem plausible or from a long time ago, that justice is putting the wrong people in jail.

    It is a really difficult one to judge. Too many rapists out there, but I’m not sure that going after easier and political targets to make cases run by police officers personally involved, is a good approach. Be warned!

  3. We occasionally hear of Parole Board hearings where a prisoner is deemed to be not suitable for favourable treatment because they refuse to admit their guilt.

    I occasionally read in US newspapers of prisoners convicted and in jail for many years being found to be not guilty of the crimes which got them there.

    How does that work? You’re not guilty, you know you’re not guilty, you don’t go with the constructed false narrative and so you’re punished again.

    Imagine it. All the stuff happens, you are found guilty, you are in jail for 16 years or 21 years saying you are not guilty. You are pilloried for not admitting to the crime. Then 17 or 22 years later something happens where it comes out that they have found the perpetrator and know for sure they are the one.

    • This is what has happened to my brother. He is in a catch 22 situation. Wrongfully convicted of double murder with no evidence anyone had been murdered. Twenty three years later he is still in prison because he won’t lie http://www.freescottwatson.org

  4. Heartbreaking. BUT we aren’t being told the full story are we? Because of our useless fucked up joke Justice system. Everything that shows the Crown to be a lying twisted odious persecutor of Kafkaesque proportions is suppressed. I had a similar experience last year and have been fighting for 4 and a half years for justice for a family member. The filthy lowlifes who are Crown Prosecutors lie and warp and the evidence, prevent contrary evidence from being admitted ,stop affidavits going in front juries and defame defendants on a daily basis.Defence lawyers are lazy, do not listen and think they know it all. Our Justice system is a dirty disgusting lie. We have a police force who prosecute laws they don’t agree with or believe in and a useless lazy government who do nothing to change or improve our Justice system. After all we have an ex journo with no legal training as a Justice minister. Sums it all up really.

  5. I have read the linked Herald article as a counterbalance. Just a couple of points:

    – Why is it suggested the absence of DNA is relevant when it seems the defense acknowledged there was some sexual contact between the two but claimed it was all consensual?

    – What is the innocent explanation for the cellphone video? I can’t think of a plausible one unless it is being claimed that the victim shot the video with the intention of framing Jamie. Is that the case?

    I want to be objective because we all know that innocent people have been convicted of serious crimes in the past. It sounds like suppression orders are making it difficult for Jackie to properly articulate her son’s side of the story, because this article is so vague it is impossible for the reader to reach any sort of informed conclusion.

    • “It sounds like suppression orders are making it difficult for Jackie to properly articulate her son’s side of the story, because this article is so vague it is impossible for the reader to reach any sort of informed conclusion.”
      Yet the jury was expected to do just that.
      Welcome to our adversarial rather than inquisitive judicial proceedings where admissibility of evidence is a competition between the parties..

  6. Hi Katie – I am not a mother but I feel your pain. I do not have a son but I understand what you must be going through. I read a very good post from Dr Felicity Goodyear-Smith in TDB yesterday and your son’s case is exactly what she is talking about. The whole system today is set up so that if someone makes a complaint of a sexual assault the system will believe them – say it must be true. Now, not only your son, but you and your family are suffering because of this.

    Julie-Anne Genter from the Green Party is pressing for a change in the rape laws to make it even more difficult for people accused of sexual crimes – mainly men – to defend themselves. Her belief is that once the allegation is made, the man must be guilty. I have read many articles from women lawyers decrying this change in law and I had the chance to speak one of them recently and she said the government will push it through because they need the Greens and this will be to the destruction of what she called fair trial rights. It is obvious to me from your article that your son’s fair trial rights were denied and this is even before the law change proposed by Genter. Like Monique, I applaud your courage for standing up and speaking out for your son

    • I believe that rather than J-A Genter it is Jan Logie who is more closely associated with pushing the proposed Bill. I’m happy to be corrected if wrong.

  7. Jamie Foster is and always has been an exemplary young man. His wrongful conviction and the injustice done to him and his family by this justice system must be questioned. The actual facts and true occurances and real nature of this case have not been heard by the jury, the media or the nation. It is horrific to think this could happen to another person. I am very aware of what is going on and my disappointment in this nation’s legal system means that “there by the Grace of God, we could all be!”

  8. This is incredibly sad.
    Our Justice system’s a bit broken.
    I’m thinking about Julian Assange – He was set up too.

  9. It seems obvious to me that this guy thought he had permission from the (victim) to do what he did. Unfortunately for him the women had a right to refuse him at any time regardless of how she acted throughout the night. Which is why some of the so called evidence was suppressed. (as well as preservmg the integrity of the disputed evidence for future appeals) This mother is framing as it being hidden to falsely convict her son. It matters not if she was all over him or acting like a slut all night. If he didn’t have explicit permission at the moment of ((for want of a better word…entry)..it was rape. If the assumption of permission gave you a right to sex with a person half of the rapist in jail would be innocent.
    If a mothers belief in their sons innocence was a deciding factor in trials the jails would be empty.

    • Oh dear. Another misandric judge jury and executioner among us! If promiscuity or being a ‘slut’ as you call it Kim towards a man is not a social que, I don’t what is. After all, ‘sluts’ are known for being ‘easy’. Women don’t know what they want. Their decision making is based on a whim of fleeting emotions. Hot one minute, cold the next. No man wants to consistently have to deal with that cognitive dissonance and its why many men are walking away from the roller-coaster that is the toxic modern dating scene. Too risky when you can be falsely accused of something based on how a woman ‘feels’ about something in hindsight when at the time it all seemed OK with her. No no, at this rate even talking to a woman will require a contract written by lawyers to avoid false allegations.

      • I never said i believed in his guilt or innocence. I’m pointing out that every women has a right to say no at any time and permission needs to be sought immediately prior to the event. I don’t care of she f#@ked a whole rugby team. If she is asleep before the reserves get a turn but they do it anyway.. that’s rape.

        • Yes she can say no but what if she said yes before she said no and what if she said nothing what does that mean. This can be complicated and not as clean cut as people think.

          • Its not complicated. If you are about to and you ask..are u ok with this. I have read a little bit about this case and have no knowledge of the suppressed evidence but i believe the undisputed facts are she went to bed (alone) and sometime later he entered her room and proceeded to have sex with her. she woke up and told him to piss off. Hence no dna as he was’t able to “finish” Sound to me like he didn’t seek permission just prior but relied on what he thought was implied permission.

            • Kim, I agree the undesputed facts are that she went to bed alone. And he joined her later through her unlocked door.
              It is desputed though that he had any sex with her. You can leave DNA traces simply by contact. It’s not about ‘finishing’. But no DNA was found.

              If she woke up and told him to ‘piss off’, when then did she have time to make the recording? According to info I’ve read on this case, they were together in her room for 20 or so minutes. I question what else was said in this time….I believe it’s part of the suppressed info. But obviously there was a discussion for a length of time. It matches up more with his story that it was preplanned, hence she left her door open for him. Why else would he go over knowing every other room was filled with other cops that were there on the night if she could’ve screamed or something? Just a lot that doesn’t add up.

              • How do you know it wasn’t him trying to convince her not to do anything legally that took the 20mins. Just because he thought he was invited or even if he was invited earlier that still doesn’t give him the right to have sex with her when it suited him. he still needed to gain approval just prior to the event. i believe he believed he had permission so the going over there with other cops around isn’t really an issue. I don’t know if he’s guilty or not but noone is standing up for the victim here so i will play devils advocate to at least inject a little perspective into the discussion.

                • For someone who claims to not know much about this case. Who says they weren’t there and are making assumptions of how the evening went in their own words….you seem to know an awful lot. You are welcome to stand on the side of the “victim” but this story is about proving Jamie’s innocence.

                  • Im only presenting a counter view when responding to others assumptions about suppressed evidence. This blog gives no opportunity for the (victim?) to respond so why shouldn’t someone question it?. If you only have one side of the story its not about proving anything. It’s about trying to convince you of something without all the facts. If every person convicted of anything didn’t have to face a counter version of events noone would ever be convicted of anything.

                • “How do you know it wasn’t him trying to convince her not to do anything legally that took the 20mins.”

                  If someone woke me up like that, I definitely wouldn’t spend the next 20 minutes letting them try to convince me of anything. I’d scream for them to get the hell out and alert all those cops around me for protection immediately.

        • How can anyone be asleep while a very tall and quite hefty person gets on the bed next to them, presumably on top of them, uncovers and undresses them? Then proceeds to rape them! And how many of the numerous women that have been raped in this world had the presence of mind to turn on a recording device, after leaving their motel door unlocked at night.
          And chat to the rapist for 30 minutes after he has raped them? It would be interesting to know these statistics.

    • The problem is that often ‘memory’ is not as accurate as people think but extremely compelling in court. I don’t know enough about the case, but there are clearly going to be big issues going forward if one person is able to convict someone based on their perceived experience and not factors ….

      “There is now a wealth of evidence, from research conducted over several decades, suggesting that eyewitness testimony is probably the most persuasive form of evidence presented in court, but in many cases, its accuracy is dubious. There is also evidence that mistaken eyewitness evidence can lead to wrongful conviction—sending people to prison for years or decades, even to death row, for crimes they did not commit. Faulty eyewitness testimony has been implicated in at least 75% of DNA exoneration cases—more than any other cause (Garrett, 2011). In a particularly famous case, a man named Ronald Cotton was identified by a rape victim, Jennifer Thompson, as her rapist, and was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. After more than 10 years, he was exonerated (and the real rapist identified) based on DNA evidence. For details on this case and other (relatively) lucky individuals whose false convictions were subsequently overturned with DNA evidence, see the Innocence Project website (http://www.innocenceproject.org/).”

      https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases

      My concern is that NZ justice is going wrong while trying to do the right thing. Everyone wants rapists to be punished but anybody who works around family court, will know when it comes to getting control of children or money an a host of other issues where people who previously supposedly loved each other, go nuts and allegations emerge that never saw the light of day before.

      In addition the cancel culture and modern brainwashing has many entitled people using anybody and anything to get ahead or be noticed! https://www.chimamanda.com/news_items/it-is-obscene-a-true-reflection-in-three-parts/

      On the flip side we have people in power who are rapists and abusers and been operating like that for decades, like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Crosby. It is extremely difficult situation.

      When there is a lot of evidence the police do nothing aka the Roast busters case (rapists boasting about it on social media is pretty compelling evidence and the age of the child means consent was not able to be obtained, clear case, but not prosecuted by police when the complaint first came to police).

    • What do you mean by ‘so called evidence’ being suppressed?
      According to the Appeal Judgement document online which is available to the public, it shows there are three suppressions on this case which is what the mother is referring to that she cant speak on. There is so much in that document that has been redacted so it shows there’s is a lot being hidden from the public.

      • There is so much in that document that has been redacted so it shows there’s is a lot being hidden from the public.

        Exactly.
        The hallmarks of a set-up.

    • Goodness me. If it seems so (quote) ‘obvious to you’ – that Jamie had ‘permission from the victim’. I’d love to know what the victim did to encourage this feeling and permission inside him? After reading the case as outlined in the many media outlets, I must question why the victims door was left unlocked in the first place?

      https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/120140703/police-sex-assault-trial-i-did-not-cheati-was-sexually-assaulted

      Somehow I can’t fathom
      after drinking all night that the victim seemed aware enough to grab her phone and hit record, but not lucid enough to protect herself from this ‘supposed’ dangerous lurking predator outside ? Anyone reading these facts from articles would have to question these notions.

      Your comments appear to slut shame the victim – where you go on to insinuate that a women giving and sending sexual signals all night and acting like a (quote) ‘slut’, all over a man isn’t to blame so to speak when he then welcomes those ‘exact’ signals and responds accordingly to that type of behavior. I’m just left dumbfounded, completely perplexed and confused at this scenario..?
      You note that some of the evidence was suppressed to not highlight how she in-fact ‘acted all night’ – however your comment makes me realise that ‘yes’ – how relevant, or not the suppressed evidence may be – there were two sides to this case and only the victims side has been heard.

      I applaud the mother for fighting this, to have her sons innocence proven.
      Because yes, I do definitely agree – there would be a fair few less ‘innocent men’ – in our prisons, if all their mother’s fought for the truth to be heard.

      • I never said that that was how she acted. I pointed out that even IF she acted like that it doesn’t give him permission.

  10. Crikey that was a tough read, my heart goes out to the mum.

    And to the daughter-in-law, who it appears is collateral damage in this whole sorry mess. From what I can ascertain it seems her husband has -at the least- behaved unfaithfully.

    And not knowing the full facts of the case I’m inclined to be guided by her. In these circumstances where she is an injured party, by being categorical that her partner has not offended in the manner described, I’m inclined to believe her.

    • So you would decide the case based on he testimony of someone who wasm’t there and only has her husbands version of events? You can’t be serious.

      • Not at all.

        What I’m saying is that in the absence of the full facts to form my own judgement, the person in possession of the full facts (mother, prosecutor, complainant, defendant, &c.) I’m most inclined to believe is her.

        • Mother? was she there? no she has her sons version. Wife? Nope she has her husbands version. The only two people who know the truth is the involved parties.

          • Agreed that the only two people who know the truth are the two that were in that room that night. Him and her.
            We have heard loudly and clearly her version.
            Isn’t it only fair that we hear his version of the ‘whole truth.’

  11. To add to the matter jury trials don’t always work in the best interest of delivering fair and equitable justice they tend to sway to the victim/s especially if the police have bloody or gruesome pictures and the jurist can easily be emotionally influenced and this clouds there judgement. But the Police can be bad too they do plea bargaining with some of those being convicted to the detriment of the victim/s and their whanau who deserve justice. Plea bargaining is really bad and its a practice our Police have got away with doing for a very long time. If your a Maori its even worse. The entire justice system needs to change its rotten to the core.

  12. This is an absolute disgrace from the NZ justice system. A young man who has been serving New Zealand and New Zealanders is destroyed because evidence is not shared. Does the judge think that the jury can not handle all the facts to make a true and informed decision.

    The evidence needs to come to light and the NZ Police need to tell the truth and the whole truth.

    This has been a pre-determined trial by selective evidence and this man has had his hands tied, been gagged and destroyed by our justice system.

    I look forward to the truth being told to NZ, we deserve to hear the whole truth.

  13. Thank you Jackie and The Daily Blog for getting this story out there in the public arena getting people talking there needs to be change in the judicial system so that the whole story can be told equally not all one sided as it seems to appear. The jurors have a right to have balance in making the right decision.

  14. If it’s true justice you want shouldn’t all evidence be presented so that innocent people and their families don’t have to go to hell and back to fight for the truth hell it’s easy if you ask me put it all on the table present everything and take it from their. Don’t hold back anything , these people are adults let the evidence prove who is telling the true and who is not.

  15. http://www.ccrc.nz
    Anyone convicted of a crime in a New Zealand court, and who believes they have suffered a miscarriage of justice over their conviction or sentence, or both, can apply to Te Kāhui Tātari Ture | Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) for an independent review of their case.

  16. So, if this little angel was so innocent and clearly stitched up, then why wouldn’t he have taken the stand and given evidence in his own defense? Surely that’s a pretty accurate parameter of someone’s impassioned feeling of their own innocence. Yes, in this country we have the right to silence, but I believe in this case it speaks volumes.
    As for suppressed evidence, this is standard practice for all court cases, especially ones of this nature.

    One appeal already thrown out, I would say that judge and jury got this one spot on.

    • It seems to me that due to the suppressions and what was deemed inadmissable, there wasn’t much evidence left that he was actually allowed to say should he have taken the stand. Sounds like most of his defense was taken away from him.
      If you’re not allowed to speak on a bunch of things in your defense to give a full picture to the jury, what is the point in taking the stand?
      I don’t think that shows anything but that the trial was unfair and should be done over with all evidence allowed.

  17. Was this not the case where he was ringing a family friend asking for help shortly afterwards? Seems to me he is not such an admirable young man if he was cheating on his wife. Whether innocent of rape on the night he knew he had done something wrong. As a mother who’s son is in jail also, I know my son is completely innocent but I also know he has not done everything the police have accused him of doing. Nor is he the person police have made him out to be. These days you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. If there is no evidence it is your word against the police and as my sons lawyer told us they will believe the police. We were also told there was no point in pissing the police off as they would make life hard for him in the future. That is how NZ justice works. If he pleads guilty he will be out in a couple of months. If he pleads not guilty he will be in till next year as the courts are backed up. Needless to say he has chosen to plead guilty. How many other people in jail have plead guilty just because they have had enough and want to get on with living. Remember you are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent. Maybe males should take a video of females agreeing before hand, because its pretty hard to get evidence of innocence after the fact.

    • I am sorry to hear that your son is in prison. Unfortunately, people cheat all the time. However, do people who cheat deserve to be in prison? I think if you read between the lines of this story you can see that this guy has not been able to put forward all of his evidence. I have looked at the Court of Appeal judgement document as someone above mentioned in the comments and the amount that has been redacted is shameful. I can hardly read it because of all the missing info, it doesn’t make sense. The suppression orders have wiped out everything more than just people’s names.

      This is what leads me to believe that there is something more to this and makes me question the whole story. It is up for his family to judge him morally, not the court, media or the public. However, it appears that the NZ justice system has taken away that right for them and now they have been drawn into this mess so my heart does go out to them.

      I am a woman and I am just telling it like I see it and from what I read. Read between the lines from the mainstream sensationalised news. If you dig deeper, cracks really start to appear and the other side of the story does not add up.

  18. I asked my son similar age to Jamie Foster , I said if you where found guilty of a crime you didn’t commit and you where given the chance to get out early if you signed something to say you did it even thou you didn’t would you , he said absolutely I couldn’t and wouldn’t survive in prison . So at parole this is what I heard they do , you get out if you admit guilty and sign your life away . That is crazy

  19. Jo and Don
    What’s going on Hear. ? Surely no DNA means no rape , Doesn’t it . ? Too much evidence has been suppressed.
    Every man needs to be afraid if this sort of travesty is allowed to keep a man away from his family .
    Why doesn’t evidence, vital evidence that gets to be revealed? And what of the complainant? She would not be the first liar to commit perjury and surely as a trained police officer cant, she look after herself better. why didn’t she lock her door which is standard practice in motels. Was she under the influence?.
    Why carry out your duties in a drunken state . Come on Police , ” Share ” the evidence ??? .’

Comments are closed.