The 2002 SFO investigation
August 30th, 2008 at 7:46 am by David FarrarFor all of Peters’ complaints about the SFO wanting to get revenge on him, they are doing exactly the same thing as they did in 2002 with regard to National, when there were also allegations about funding through a secret trust.
The SFO announced on 13 May 2002 the investigation:
Mr Bradshaw said he was investigating “a particular allegation relating to an aspect of funding provided to the National Party in the mid-1990s”.
It was not until 10 July 2002, that it cleared National:
Today, SFO director David Bradshaw said in a statement the investigation was complete and “there is no evidence of any criminal wrong-doing”.
Helen Clark called the election on 12 June for 27 July, so the SFO took two months back then to investigate, despite the fact it was in the middle of an election campaign. So any suggestions the SFO will on Monday announce it is all sorted out, seem rather optimistic.
Related posts:
- SFO announces SCF now under investigation
- Bakshi under Police investigation
- SFO denies leaking
- Clark due in new job on 20 April
August 30th, 2008 at 10:13 am
IMHO the SFO dont have the will the capacity or the capability to investigate these matters competently I fear a fudge like they did with the Wine Box when there was clear evidence
Remember how their time sheets showed just a few hours of work to supposedly analyse wine boxes full of compex documents.
How the then Director admitted not being able to understand the wiring diagrams.
Until I see evidence of a thorough forensic investigation with all the boxes ticked off I will regard any dismissal of the charges as suspect.
the mere fact Liddell is refusing to investigate the Scampi affair shows his reluctance to go to near to the fire.
there are a number on unanswered questions uncluding the Crapper interview (unfortunate name but very appropriate in the circumstances) that need addressing
if the SFO wont then my question is Is this because the trail leads to persons who it “wouldnt be in the public interest” to identify
Vote:August 30th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Watched TV3 news and the poodle’s “criminal lawyer”, Williams, was doing his nuts that JK has dumped on an innocent man, oh fucking please. If his client hadn’t being such a clever bastard to start with all this wouldn’t have come down on the poodle. Williams and Peters are very much alike, Williams the high powered lawyer that has being around for years and will clear up any problem as soon as he is on the scene. Peters, believes he is the born to rule polititcian that has being around for years and believes he is above any problem. Both need to take a long holiday.
Anyhow Williams was harping on how the Spencer trust was all above board. He will have to do better then that. If everything is aok then what flushed the Dear Leader out to spill her guts. And why all the smoke and mirrors from the poodle or am I mistaken and his is just a arrogant bastard.
Vote:August 30th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
DPF
How many times has Winston said “I can clear this up in a matter of minutes” ?
So can we assume if it’s not all sorted out within say 10 minutes after the start of the meeting that – surprise surprise Winston is full of shit ?
Vote:August 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Two rather crucial differences. The National allegations always seemed political rather than substantive and National bent over backwards to cooperate.
Peter Williams QC was less lawyer and more political advocate for Winston Peters and cleverly made all the issues surrounding Winston a binary matter – if SFO clears him then he is pure as driven snow. The reality, of course, is that lies and hypocracy seem to be proven, obfiscation is a given and lack of fitness for a ministerial warrant goes beyond whether or not there is enough for a criminal prosecution.
Vote:August 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
GPT1
Excluding the fact we are talking about Helen Clark’s ethical standards – what you say here is absolutely correct. I wouldn’t trust the bastard to be honest with the takings from a BBQ outside the Warehouse.
Yes Winston I know you sold 300 sausages at $1 each, I’ve listened to your explanations that you assured me would only take a minute for 3 days now and I still don’t understand why there is no money at all in the tin but all 300 sausages were sold…..
Vote:August 30th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
If (and its a massive if) Peter Wiliams is correct and this can all be cleared up in ten minutes.
Vote:Then Winnie should be charged with wasting the SFO’s time if it was that simple to start with.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
In fairness to Winston the enquiry should be as thorough and as prolonged as that concerning his prospective cellmate Taito Field who he so strenuously defended in the house.. WILLIAMS declares all criminals inocent or illtreated but there is no doubting his domineering competence. I just hope the SFO investigators can cope with him.
Vote: