Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

13 Comments

  1. Hi Jackie, after reading your first article I was astonished with the process and the withholding of vital information to enable the jury to make informed decisions. Like the Court system can determine what evidence is allowed to be shared is unbelievable and freedom of speech is completely stolen by a system, a system that should allow anyone to protect them selves by sharing evidence.

    Now to hear the NZ Police withheld further evidence from the court is a sure sign that they did not want the hole truth to be shared in the first place, I hate to say a pre-determined outcome ‘by-design’ as apposed ‘by-trial’ – it is unacceptable and needs to be reheard with all facts delivered to a new jury.

    I also do not trust the Court of Appeal have delivered an insightful review, I get the feeling this is considered administration to them, document reading and easier to leave Jamie behind bars rather than to consider the wrongs that are now so clear and obviouse in the lead ups to his judgement.

    I applaud your braveness to share your story and I really hope it is heard and that there is someone in the justice system who can move beyond mistake, and right the wrong by providing a fair trial with full evidence.

    I am sure there are many more who have experienced an unjust justice system.

  2. “Following the trial, we were shocked to find that the police had withheld crucial evidential documents until after the trial was finished!”

    How does this align with the fair trial rights? Not only was his defense taken away by suppressions and evidence being deemed inadmissable but then evidence doesn’t even make it to the trial at all? And by the Police themselves?
    This is insane! What are they hiding?

  3. So, some of the original evidence was deemed “inadmissible”. Then, a significant amount of evidence that was presented was later redacted. After the case was wrapped up, yet another body of evidence surfaces.

    Too much information is being held back for the case as-is to be the full picture.
    What are they hiding, who wanted it hidden, and why?

  4. They are hiding a lot.
    Corruption at the highest level and nothing you can do about it.
    Jackie’s narrative is completely true and accurate.
    They needed a scapegoat. Jamie is the New Zealand police’s scapegoat.
    The suppressed evidence is damaging to the upper echelon of this investigation.
    The truth will out, eventually, one day, as it always does.
    In the meantime an innocent man accused of rape and his family are being subjected to a traumatic ordeal.
    Have no faith in the police, the law or the judicial system. Be afraid. Be very afraid!

    1. Does anyone remember how little media coverage or punishment was handed out to the drunken and lewd spree the policemen including senior sergeants engaged in that night til the early hours.
      And early the next morning with at the very least bad hangovers…at the very worst still in a drunken state their long drive to guard the Prime Minister of this country.
      Does anyone marvel at how Jamie Fosters accusation of rape, the very public sham of a trial, and his conviction came as a very convenient distraction.
      How this sacrificial lamb served, among other hidden agendas, to appease the public outrage that should have erupted at the unbelievably appalling behaviour of our police.

  5. Wow, I can’t believe what I’m reading. I went to school with that guy. We weren’t close mates but he was a great guy. no way he’s done this. I feel for his family. This sounds like the makings of the next Netflix hit!

  6. Advice from someone familiar with the long campaign to fight to clear Peter Ellis:
    You will be in this for a long haul. Start collecting data now. All of it. Use OI requests, show up in person to court registrars, front up to police station desks, get everything – from officials and from any private parties, legal correspondence, all legal advice, correspondence between yourself and others to politicians etc, Court transcripts – get the lot, don’t be scrupulous about the the protocols but don’t break any laws. Dig dig dig. You may be rewarded with what turns up. This is advice to you, not to your legal team who will have their own guidelines to adhere to.

  7. Hi Jackie Hi Martyn, sorry to take so long to comment but I got waylaid by PTSD when I saw yesterday’s political caption thing. I have met Jamie Foster and my impression was that he is of a most impeccable character, respectful, honest and meticulous. That’s how we would like our police force: straight up. We all dream of winning Lotto too.

Comments are closed.