Hard News: Veitch
619 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 25 Newer→ Last
-
Sadly, this (yet again and again I am sure) is a lesson to all in, lack of information determines the out come. Unfortunately for Dunne Powell,not informing the hospital correctly,(causing permanent medical problems) and the police getting the info late, has allowed the media the chinese whispers they so relish and consequently, the judicial outcome.I support our democracy of benefit of doubt but a plea bargain is exactly that, it's a deal and I know Lawyers are very good at making deals and jumping to the front of the queue may have been in the deal because it (the case) did pop up all of a sudden this time Perhaps it's a good deal in her mind,finally her prerogative. I know what I think of that man and I will tell others.I'm not giving him anymore time on here.
-
Kristin Dunne-Powell explains in some detail her side of the story, including about media coverage, timing of telling the police and even the nature of her relationship with Veitch.
Worth a read - like the Campbell interview she comes across as self-aware and balanced despite what she has been through.
-
Good point, Danyl. Seems it's not just the media wing of his expensive servants whose behavior has attracted attention. DomPost reports 'Team Veitch tried to intimidate me'.
Auckland journalist Stephen d'Antal, who had spoken to Ms Dunne-Powell about the case before she complained to police, was served with a court summons by Veitch's defence team.
He believed Team Veitch was running a campaign to intimidate Ms Dunne-Powell and her supporters.
A private investigator had knocked on his door at 9.30 one night to deliver a court summons and he believed another court witness was visited even later at night.
"It just seemed very deliberate to me," he said.
"I think it was trying to unnerve and unsettle the prosecution and Ms Dunne-Powell to try and get her to back down."
-
Kristin Dunne-Powell explains in some detail
yeah I just read that too.I'm glad she is not moving,but he can fuk off
-
Kristin Dunne-Powell explains in some detail her side of the story, including about media coverage, timing of telling the police and even the nature of her relationship with Veitch.
I think at least some "detail" in that story may have been lost at the last moment. I guess we'll see tomorrow what the Sundays do with the handiwork of Veitch's PI.
But in the Herald's lead story, Team Veitch admits none of luminaries who provided character references were told what was going on -- and it seems some were actively lied to:
Former Olympic triathlon champion Hamish Carter told the Weekend Herald he had understood the reference he gave to Veitch was for a job interview and was connected to the broadcaster getting his passport released. He said Veitch asked him this week for a reference.
Veitch's lawyer, Stuart Grieve, QC, did not return phone calls. Veitch's spokeswoman, Glenda Hughes, yesterday telephoned all those who wrote support letters for Veitch.
None knew Veitch was going to plead guilty, but Ms Hughes said only Mr Currie and Dame Susan had raised concerns.
The true reason for the references being requested was kept secret because the sentencing indication the day before Veitch pleaded guilty was totally confidential.
"We couldn't tell anyone about this, only that the references would go before the court," Ms Hughes said.
She could not say who removed the paragraphs referring to the passport.
It'll be interesting to see whether any more comes of this.
But anyway, that "I had a good time and I found stuff" quote from Veitch in the Dom Post about employing a PI to snoop on Dunne-Powell is nasty .
-
Devoy is talking to her lawyers about this. I doubt anything will come of it from a judicial standpoint (based on my zero seconds of experience and extensive ignorance of the law), but in terms of Veitch's ability to return to work the last 48 hours have been brutal. Surely he's pretty radioactive right now.
-
Posted a couple of hours ago on the TVNZ site:
A lawyer following the Tony Veitch assault case says Dame Susan Devoy should tell the sentencing judge she felt misled by the Veitch team ....
Lawyers believe it was unethical and would certainly upset a judge.
"It's pretty bloody rough,' said one criminal lawyer, who did not want to be named.
It was unlikely the case would be recalled but he had no doubt Judge Doogue would be very upset she had been given doctored documents, he said.
"I would say the legal profession is very surprised a reference given in good faith was amended."
I'm not surprised Mr Grieve is proving difficult to reach at the moment.
-
The arrogance that Veitch and his team have displayed is incredible. This editing of character testimonials shows how low they were willing to go.
I won't watch or listen to anything with him in in future.
-
Surely he's pretty radioactive right now.
Just as surely, it's all self-inflicted. What a dick.
-
Surely he's pretty radioactive right now.
I'll wait until Sunday to get more of an idea of the man's half-life - but yeah, what Michael said.
-
The true reason for the references being requested was kept secret because the sentencing indication the day before Veitch pleaded guilty was totally confidential.
"We couldn't tell anyone about this, only that the references would go before the court," Ms Hughes said.
Yet clearly at least three referees were *not* told that the references would go before a court. "Passport office" and "potential bosses" /=/ court.
It's almost fascinating, in a really sick way, to see just how deep Veitch and co. can manage to dig themselves.
-
He did, after, all have the opportunity of a press conference and a enabling interview with one of his media friends.
A media friend who was, apparently, giving Veitch advice on that press conference and how to "manage perceptions". But here's what really offends me: I understand the editor of the organ concerned was aware of the enabler's blatant conflict of interest, but didn't think the readers deserved to have that little factoid disclosed.
Its hard to be disappointed by people you expect nothing from in the first place. But when you're editing a newspaper that likes to take a very high ethical tone (at least, where the competition is concerned), you win the arsehole of the week award by default.
-
Surely he's pretty radioactive right now.
Surely Clint Rickard's chances of being considered a person of suitable character, demeanour and judgement to practice law were low to non-existent...
-
Reminds me of the behaviour of some people who act on behalf of a certain governing political party, but that's by-the-by.
I don't see any need to kick Mike Williams while he's down, Red.
-
A couple of typical overly verbose points:
Firstly given that Veitch's job is as a journalist reporting on high profile so-called elite sports, does anyone else see the conflict of interest situation arising if you are one of those high profile sports people asked to supply veitch a reference?
Saying yes and giving a glowing testimonial would mean that if Veitch got his gig back, the sportsperson would be entitled to feel he/she had one in the favour bank with someone influential in the sports media. The ordure can hit the ventilator any place any time for those who live from/in the public eye. What's not to like about having a sports journo owe you one?
If Veitch is never rehabilitated (unlikely - see further down) then it is a 'nothing ventured nothing gained' outcome.
However if he is rehabilitated and you, the elite sportsperson knocked back the offer to get in on the ground floor of team Veitch shareholders, life could be difficult should a sunday journal fix it's sights on you in the future.
At least one member of the 'straight press' (irony intended) could feel he owes you no favours, you refused the opportunity to aid him we he was down.
Many of our current crop of sports people appear to be individualistic neo-liberal careerist types. Just the sort of person who could make a cold decision to write a glowing testimonial about a man despite his being convicted of assaulting a woman, if it could stand the writer in good stead at some future date.
I would have thought that issue alone would make Veitch's re-employ by state broadcasters impossible.
Of course a career end just won't happen. I'm sure someone somewhere has obtained a Ph D in communications or public relations or the semiotics of tabloid reporting, for their thesis which set out the methodology for determining the length of 'cooling off' required to 'spin up' a piece of media revisionism.
That is NZ's news media aren't famed for their institutional memory when it comes to national political matters let alone something as inconsequential as a sporting journalist's domestic relations.
So when Ms Hughes and Co do determine what the cooling off period for Veitch is and that has passed, they only need to promote a couple of stories about something peripheral to the Veitch case, preferably something derogatory about Ms Dunne-Powell and slyly inject what they are currently claiming to be the case as a fact in that future story, to have all NZ's mass media accept currently wild claims about set ups, insinuations about blackmail, as fact.
In no time at all, that most easily led section of the public, our swing voters so to speak, will be clamouring for Veitch's return on a Game of Two Halves, Close Up, Breakfast, the 7 o'clock news.
Watch and see.
It happens with everything else from global warming to crooked tory pols, so why wouldn't the same technique work for Veitch.
As for the elephant in the living room, how does an employee of a state broadcaster manage to afford such a vast PR campaign, seemingly extended over years? I dunno, but I believe that goes to the heart of everything that is wrong with TVNZ.For me, Veitch is the epitome of why TVNZ is the only public broadcaster in the world I refuse to use. Which is really saying something considering the appalling broadcaster the BBC has become since the Hutton inquiry.
-
Sue,
watching those interview again today
what i cannot get over 2 things
- it feels to me like he truly believes that he was forced into the situation. which disgusts me, unless she laid the first hit nothing justifies it at all
- he keeps answering JC with 'what more could i have done',1. at the same time you admit the crime say that nothing justifies that crime (NOTHING) no sitution no stress, nothing in this earth made his acctions acceptable, and stop couching his guilty with insinuations the crime is partly her fault
2. not lie to the people at the hospital about the injury
those are 2 things i keep thinking about
-
Sue,
Surely Clint Rickard's chances of being considered a person of suitable character, demeanour and judgement to practice law were low to non-existent...
well rickards got a job with aipareira Trust, and seems to be besties with John Tamihere, maybe tony V can get a job there as well
-
Reminds me of the behaviour of some people who act on behalf of a certain governing political party, but that's by-the-by.
Oh, I've got to withdraw and apologise to DC Red. Perhaps he was alluding to this sleaze backfire in the UK.
-
well rickards got a job with aipareira Trust, and seems to be besties with John Tamihere
Yup... but I think both Tamihere and Willie Jackson (twice) pretty much gave him another uncritical platform to call Louise Nicholas a mentally unstable, malicious liar. I'm really beginning to wonder why folks like Veitch and Rickards (and their media enablers) aren't on the receiving end of defamation writs, instead of threatening to dish them out. I can take a lot of shit (and so I should, considering I can get my bitch on) but being accused of lying under oath? Not so much.
-
Isn't that Contempt of Court, or even Perjury?
No.
Graeme,
Are you sure it's not a possible case of contempt, even with the claim that the documents were altered?
The only reason I can think of to alter the letters in the way they allegedly were would be to stop the judge from realising the context in which the letters were written. Assuming they were altered, and it was deliberate, whoever did the alteration is surely guilty of deceiving a judge. No?
-
Can NZ judges haul a defendant back for resentencing if they've been misled? I know English ones can.
-
You might have noticed an amusing caricature of me in some of the Powershop ads appearing here.
Comrade Brown!!!
Everyone is complaining — yet the voting is always unanimous.
-
I understand the Sunday News had a Dunne-Powell story based on a handy "leak" injuncted just recently, so perhaps they got that injunction lifted yesterday, as soon as the court case was over and intend to go with it tomorrow.
-
Sadly, if I suspect if the injury was less obvious than a broken back, the smears and supporters would have even more bite.
-
Graeme,
Are you sure it's not a possible case of contempt, even with the claim that the documents were altered?
The only reason I can think of to alter the letters in the way they allegedly were would be to stop the judge from realising the context in which the letters were written. Assuming they were altered, and it was deliberate, whoever did the alteration is surely guilty of deceiving a judge. No?
Quite possibly. That doesn't make it contempt of court, however.
I understand the Sunday News had a Dunne-Powell story based on a handy "leak" injuncted just recently
Injuncted isn't a word ... you're looking for enjoined :-)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.