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

Jackie & her Son, Jamie.

Part 1, 2 and 3 of Jamie’s story

Sometimes when you read a story like ours with police involved in alleged crimes, evidence deemed inadmissible, police withholding crucial evidence, juries not seeing the full picture resulting in a wrongful conviction followed by secrecy and suppressions of facts – it’s easy to label it a ‘conspiracy’ or a ‘crazy mother’ speaking out.

Surely this can’t happen in little old New Zealand, right?

However, the more I have shared my story, the more people have told me similar stories. An overwhelming number of strangers have reached out in support of my son and our family. People are saying they’re not surprised by what we’ve experienced within what they’ve called “a broken justice system”. More and more people are starting to see major discrepancies in our case and the clear signs of a true miscarriage of justice.

Mainstream media have done nothing to provide New Zealanders with an unbiased, fair and accurate report of the facts of this case either. The reporting on mainstream media outlets from the time of Jamie’s arrest to as late as last week have been more about catchy headlines and online clicks, rather than an unbiased, fair and accurate reporting of facts.

Even just last week, The NZ Herald published an article riddled with errors and incorrect facts. It was only live for little more than an hour before being deleted from both their social media and their website.

They quoted parts of the Court of Appeal Judgement from back in March 2021 as if it was rulings from the Supreme Court. They led the public to believe Jamie’s case was actually seen and heard in its entirety at the Supreme Court….which it never was. The Supreme Court decided, on paper only in July 2021, that they would not hear Jamie’s case.

There were many errors in the article but two that stood out to me as being completely inconsistent with the evidence called in Court (the evidence that NZ Herald reporters were in Court to hear and see).

TDB Recommends

The article quoted several times only the Crown’s statements and accusations in the trial back in 2020, with no evidence to support them or any context given to explain what was being discussed in the courtroom. It explained nothing of the timings of the evening’s events and completely inaccurately painted a fictional picture to its readers.

In the article, it said that after the ‘first incident’, “The complainant then removed herself from the group they had been socialising with and eventually went to bed”

To be accurate and fair to its readers, the Herald should’ve written; following the alleged first incident, the complainant spoke briefly to another officer, then re-joined the group of drinking officers, choosing to sit next to Foster and continued drinking and participating in drinking games. She was party to a late night trip to a closed McDonalds where the CCTV footage showed her still socialising with the same group of officers and certainly not withdrawn.

Upon returning to the motel, CCTV showed her socialising with another male officer alone for over an hour. She is shown to be interacting with Jamie briefly and then went to bed.
Around 2.5 hours after the alleged ‘first incident’. Those are the viewable facts of video footage.

The NZ Herald had a reporter present at the trial who heard and viewed all of this evidence.

In fact after what’s been labelled the ‘first incident’ in which the complainant alleged sexual assault happened, the complainant was seen on CCTV footage leaving Jamie’s room to intercept another male officer who was walking towards the room she and Jamie were in together. A brief discussion between the two ensues outside where she does not mention any alleged assault.

She then stands waiting for Jamie alone outside his room. He emerges with two beers and hands one to her which she gladly accepts and walks back to the group with Jamie. There is an audible ‘clink’ as they cheers each other. She then returns to Jamie’s room where the male officer previously intercepted is waiting.

Most people are like ‘first incident?’ What? I thought this was an alleged rape case?

In Jamie’s untold account, this ‘first incident’ was the initial ‘hookup’ between the two, which was interrupted by the male officer walking towards Jamie’s room.

This interruption is what created the plan to meet up later, which Jamie mentioned to another officer before the alleged ‘second incident’.  Evidence that officer was due to give the court but later deemed inadmissible and a jury never got to hear.
Jamie was charged with indecent assault for this incident and sentenced to a year in prison.

The second obvious misreporting was about the DNA evidence. The last line mentioned DNA for the first time in any of its publications. DNA evidence has always been unsuppressed, admissible and available to the public.

The last line pertained, once again, to a quote from the Crown trying to twist evidence – fact that despite what the complainant said, there was none of Jamie’s DNA found that would be consistent with her allegations.

There was an attempt to explain this away as a ‘suggestion of him washing himself’.

There was never any evidence to back up that ‘suggestion’. What the NZ Herald never reported was the fact that there were 36 separate tests done and the fact that Jamie volunteered his DNA so that it could be tested against hers. 36 separate tests that tested for any of Jamie’s DNA and no DNA was found to prove any sexual contact or intercourse at all.

This is what Jamie has been saying from the beginning.

After publication and deletion of the article, letters from those at the appeal were sent to the head editor in response to their many errors and biased reporting.

24 hours later, a correction and apology for errors pertaining only to the Supreme Court judgement error was published on the Herald website.

We sought an apology and retraction for misleading the readers about the truth.

A response from David Rowe – Acting Editor for the NZ Herald – stated ‘The story is a fair and accurate account of the proceedings’ and ‘The NZ Herald has reported this matter fairly and accurately.’

When all quotes in an article are from the Crown ultimately spoken in a trial to convince a jury, and are not followed up with context or evidence – It’s hardly considered a fair account of the proceedings.

The above examples show that their reporting was anything but fair and accurate – and that’s only two examples.

Many I’ve talked to used to share my trust in the mainstream media to write complete, unbiased, fair and accurate stories for our national news. Once you’ve been in our position, you no longer carry trust and hope. I’m grateful for smaller outlets like The Daily Blog for allowing its readers the truth and for the little guy’s voice to be heard among the giants.

Thank you to those who have followed my previous blogs. Alone we can do so little, but together we can achieve much. I believe in a better tomorrow for the innocent men of NZ.

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.


  1. One again, Jackie, you offer a convincing counter-narrative, not only regarding Jamie’s specific case but also on the unjust manner so many of these sexual cases are mismanaged. The police, the courts and the media have a lot to answer for.

  2. Hi Jackie – yet again you have exposed articulately and concisely the complete injustice Jamie and you have been dealt. Not only does your article describe in explicit detail some crucial events of the night but it also highlights what the crown prosecutor was able to say and get away with saying – effectively introducing unsubstantiated speculation into the evidence to sway the jury, which was obviously swayed by the emotive rhetoric he/she used.

    I do not know much about DNA science but it seems logical to me that the cops would have also tested his clothes and also taken DNA from the woman Jamie is meant to have raped. I guess none of her DNA was on his clothes and none of his DNA was found on her or her clothing?

    The NZ Herald have adopted the #Me Too position that if a person, normally a woman, says she has been raped then she must have been and it will slant its stories to support its own narrative, as it did here, and then justify what it did by claiming it stands by its story, which it says was a fair and accurate account of the trial.

    • Hi, having been at all court hearings, I can confirm you are correct in that none of her DNA was found on Jamie, and NONE if his was found on her. It was interesting to hear that the number of tests requested, was considered extremely high compared to other alleged sexual assault cases, another example of the police on a witch hunt to nail one of their own, AND more importantly, to detract from the bad look for NZ Police fir what they did in Paihia that night.

  3. At Jamie’s trial there was an unprecedented number of nearly one hundred letters attesting to his character. Surely a headline grabber for the mainstream media. But…on the wrong side for headlines in the mainstream media.
    At Jamie’s appeal there were over sixty supporters, all wearing white…unmistakable. They had to find a larger room at the court to accomodate them. That evening in the NZ Herald online news their reporter stated that there were 20.
    I rang up the Herald, demanded to speak to the head reporter and voiced my disgust at this blatant LIE! The next morning the NZ Herald reported that there were a ‘number of supporters.’ Just an added ‘small detail’ in this saga of ‘despicable bias.’

  4. Thanks Jackie for the update and I truely hope this is hitting the desks of the right people in government.

  5. I found this information rather telling…
    Q. All right, and you took seven other samples from [the complainant’s]
    underpants just by themselves?
    A. I count eight here.
    Q. Eight? All right. And you didn’t find any of Jamie Foster’s DNA in
    any of those samples either, did you?
    A. So from a number of those samples I detected DNA from at least four
    or five males, and those results were just unsuitable for comparison
    Q. So my question was, did you find any DNA from Jamie Foster in the
    eight samples you took?
    A. Well, from those samples I was unable to do the comparisons to his
    reference sample because they were too complex. So, no, there’s no
    probative results corresponding DNA profiling results to Mr Foster’s
    reference profile.
    Q. And you took – all right. You took three samples from [the
    complainant’s] shorts, didn’t you?
    A. Yes, correct.
    Q. And you didn’t find any DNA from Mr Foster in those samples in your
    analysis, did you?
    A. Well, again, from two of those samples there was DNA from at least
    four or five males, and I wasn’t able to perform comparisons to them.

    Four or five different males DNA was found on the woman. Jamies was not.
    SHe was busy and Jamie has been stitched up

Comments are closed.