Henry changes story

September 16th, 2008 at 11:37 am by David Farrar

From Stuff:

Winston Peters has produced a phone record which backs up billionaire ’s timeline of events around a $100,000 donation towards the New Zealand First leader’s legal costs.

His lawyer today conceded to Parliament’s the pair’s recollection of events was poor and their earlier story did not now seem correct.

And not just their earlier testimony under oath, but everything they have said is cast into doubt.

The email, produced by Mr Glenn, shows Mr Henry referred to the phone conversation with “my client” at the precise time of the phone call.

Mr Henry has previously denied the “client” was Mr Peters.

But today in a video-linked appearance before the committee Mr Henry changed crucial parts of his story.

He acknowledged that Mr Peters must be the client referred to.

Now remember he denied multiple times Peters was the client. He denied this directly to the Privileges Committee.

Phone records from Mr Peters which he promised the committee last week and which were released today show Mr Peters called him one minute after he finished talking to Mr Glenn.

Mr Henry’s email was sent one minute after his phone call with Mr Peters ended.

The truth comes out. Not that it wasn’t already out for 99% of NZ.

Mr Glenn has said Mr Peters asked for the $100,000 donation in their phone call.

But Mr Henry today gave the committee a different explanation, although he acknowledged he had little recollection of the actual events.

He said he had spoken to Mr Glenn in either late November or early December asking for a donation.

Prove it. Where is the phone log?

He said the phone call from Mr Peters on December 14, which was presumably coincidental, reminded him to follow up with Mr Glenn, which he immediately did.

“That jogged my memory to seek a donation,” he said.

This is just so much bullshit. Their story has changed so many times, to fit the facts, it is just beyond belief.

Now let us make this simple for Helen:

  1. Owen Glenn phoned Winston at 1.27 pm
  2. That call ended at 1.33 pm
  3. Winston phoned Brian Henry at 1.34 pm
  4. That call ended at 1.39 pm
  5. At 1.40 pm Brian Henry sent Owen Glenn the bank account details for the donation

I am sure Helen or Michael Cullen will find a way to put it all down to an innocent explanation.

UPDATE:

NZPA also report:

Mr Glenn has denied having any dealings with Mr Henry, prompting calls for Mr Henry to produce phone records to back up his claim.

But Mr Henry said the call was made around the time of Mr Peters’ Tauranga electoral petition, between November 22 and December 1, 2005, and he was staying in a motel that only kept phone records dating back to 2006.

Well this is very easy to resolve. The motel may not have kept phone records, but Telecom certainly will have. Not that there is any real doubt, but if the Privileges Committee thinks Henry is telling the truth (this time!), then they can easily verify it by asking Telecom (and Telecom cannot refuse) to supply the phone records for those 10 days for the motel. Telecom keep these records for at least seven years.

Tags: , , ,

64 Responses to “Henry changes story”

  1. Joely Doe (31 comments) says:

    What happens when a Barrister commits perjury?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    I guess there comes a point in even Winstons life that he realises he was wrong. Or is this just a ploy to say his lawyer was wrong and its all his fault?

    But at least we can see that the privileges committee has to say he was in the wrong.

    The truth always prevails!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    ‘What happens when a Barrister commits perjury?’

    Promotion ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    It would seem that Helen Clark has nailed her colours to a sinking ship.

    Yes it’s all about trust Helen, and look who you trusted!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Inventory2 (10,185 comments) says:

    Barry Soper has opined on Newstalk ZB that it puts the likes of Cullen and Liane Dalziel in a very difficult position on the Privileges Committee – to they follow the party line, or do they accept that Peters’ and Henry’s evidence is totally unreliable and find against him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. NeillR (350 comments) says:

    Clark is happy to take the hit on this, hoping the electorate will forget when they get in the polling booth. It’s her only chance, because she knows that she’s definitely lost the election if she sacks him, but she’s only possibly lost it if she doesn’t.
    She’ll get the Labour members on the Privileges committee to vote on partisan lines (no matter how bad that smells) and then hang on for the ride – hoping that a campaign of smear, lies and deception will see her back in. Either that, or they’ll be buying a truckload of KFC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    Put it away – priceless!

    Don’t forget who made the original PC complaint which has led to the truth coming out: the Member for Epsom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. burt (8,045 comments) says:

    I2

    They follow the party line because it’s not in the public interest to upset the Labour-led govt.

    I think some retrospective validations would solve all of this nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Tim Ellis (253 comments) says:

    Quite pointedly, Henry has consistently said there was a second client who had been asked to waive privilege, but had refused. That is not a matter of poor memory, but deliberate fabrication.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Alan Wilkinson (1,850 comments) says:

    It’s impossible for the Privileges Committee to avoid condemning Peters and Henry now.

    And near impossible for Labour not to sack him before the election.

    Except that admitting that Glenn told the truth about Peters also means admitting he told the truth about Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    The lawyer is lying his ass off by the looks of it. How well does that go down in court?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. burt (8,045 comments) says:

    He told the truth and the socialists didn’t like it – just like so many crumbling socialist empires before this one. History always repeats eh Dr. Cullen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    A Truckload of KFC? Personally I smell a truckload of something else!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. burt (8,045 comments) says:

    Murray

    How well does that go down in court?

    Retrospective validations can kill court cases – Labour has the ace card. Move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Crampton (215 comments) says:

    Has anybody else been watching the prices on the Peters.Resign stock over on ipredict? Massive volatility. It dropped as low as 35% chance of his being sacked prior to the Henry testimony, climbed as high at 80% during testimony, and is now back at 55%.

    [DPF: Yeah, there has been some great swings]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Inventory2 (10,185 comments) says:

    Just remember people – “this election is all about trust”

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/09/honest-winston.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Was this phone log the document that was going to clear Peters in five minutes ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    I sense that the role of the sacrificial lamb is about to be filled by a poodle!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. democracymum (660 comments) says:

    She still can’t sack him, so watch for the spin doctors working over time on this one!

    She still believes that she is in charge, and the NZ voter will come back to her once they learn all about Labours lovely policies.
    And if that doesn’t work she will scaremonger them back into voting for her.

    Except I do believe that the electorate is over her, trouble is Helen isn’t listening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,834 comments) says:

    What price a private prosecution for perjury?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    What is the point of keeping Winston on actually? The country is in Election mode, the role of foreign minster is being filled by Phil Goff, and any sacking now will have nil effect.

    The damage has already been done, the duplicity of the Labour Government has been exposed throughout the entire issue, and the Labour members of the Privelidge Committe are now in a very uncomfortable position.

    They can either sanction Peters, and confirm what we all thought anyway, or they can enter a not guilty finding, and confirm what we all think about the Labour Party!

    And they have the unmitigated gall to refer to John Key as slippery? Hello pot, kettle calling!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    Apparently $100,000 is the going rate Adolf.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    Adolf, maybe Owen Glenn can help?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Inventory2 (10,185 comments) says:

    Spot on RoW! But at the end of the day, they will do what Helen commands them to, which is great, because it gives us armchair experts all the more ammunition for the campaign!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    Now we know the true nature of the hardcore 20% left vote. They should be an easy demographic to identify if you ever had any dealings with them.

    1) Winston lied
    2) Henry lied
    3) Helen lied

    It’s all about trust.

    National should be turning the pressure full on Helen about now. Anyone trying to swim an ocean while holding a millstone shouldn’t take much to sink. Up the pressure now and watch the disintergration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. KevOB (265 comments) says:

    What an incredible story that a leading barrister organises payment of his fees from third parties who have no legal interest in the case; this behind the back of his client and contrary to professional ethics. If he didn’t render account as previously stated who knows what he is getting from his clients? Was he really so unprofessional? The way he puts he could have been being paid by more than one part for the same work.

    The explanation this morning is no explanation. a “can’t remember, but this is what I would have no done” is no evidence. Other criminals have said “Im sure I wasn’t there your honour”. “Take him away”, being the judges reply.

    Case to the prosecution.

    Parliament will rise shortly and Clark is either trapped by Peters or sees future advantage in leaving him alone. The public sees otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. sbk (310 comments) says:

    Will Mike Williams now be thrown to the wolves.If OG’s version of the whole saga is shown to be true, then surely MW has also lied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Ross Miller (1,682 comments) says:

    I can hear the gnashing of teeth in the Beehive from where I am 750k north.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. frog (84 comments) says:

    I’m with slightlyrighty here. The whole thing stinks, but not of KFC as he/she says, but of rotten scampi as I said in my post. I still think that he will get away with it. Not because he’s been proven innocent, but because of the burden of proof and what has been said and those who will likely be taken on their word.

    This isn’t a left/right thing, it’s a question of MPs judging MPs and fearing that they, too will one day be in the hot seat. I have more faith in the SFO enquiry, as the rules are more straightforward and not part of parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. stoliver (16 comments) says:

    We are witnessing the birth of a new political party “Labour First”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (774 comments) says:

    When will the SFO enquiry be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. David Farrar (1,875 comments) says:

    Frog fails to understand that Glenn has produced evidence that backs up everything he has said (relating to this issue). Peters and Henry produced no evidence at all, until today and their evidence also backs up Owen Glenn 100%.

    The evidence produced would convict them in any court in the land, as it is beyond reasonable doubt. But the Privileges Committee doesn’t even have to determine reasonable doubt – they go on balance of probabilities.

    No honest MP could believe Peters has told the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. bearhunter (859 comments) says:

    Of course she won’t sack him. Who ever heard of a ship deserting a sinking rat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. jackp (668 comments) says:

    It would be in the best interest for Helen to sack WInston and set him adrift. If she keeps him, then how in the heck is she going to make her campaign on trust which I find very arrogant of her because she is a out and out liar. If she is banking on the public forgetting, then I don’t think that will work anymore. Hopefully Winston’s sinking ship will take her with him. I have a feeling, though, that the news will just shove it aside since they are in Labour’s corner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. coventry (316 comments) says:

    Oh DPF come on.. get with the program – this election is about TRUST it’s not about HONESTY or TRUTH (or so Hellenoccio would want you to believe).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. davidp (3,561 comments) says:

    >But Mr Henry said the call was made around the time of Mr Peters’ Tauranga electoral petition, between November 22 and December 1, 2005, and he was staying in a motel that only kept phone records dating back to 2006.

    It’s almost insulting that he thinks we’d believe he’d use a motel phone rather than a mobile phone.

    Oh, and I don’t understand people voting in favour of sacking Peters in the current Kiwiblog poll. Clark looks like an idiot campaigning on trust while employing the most untrustworthy person in NZ. The longer she keeps him on, the better. Which is why I voted no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. GPT1 (2,106 comments) says:

    I love the Peters definition of being cleared. Even this morning it was bluster about how Henry would clear him – all he has done is drop Peters further in to the mire and make Henry look an idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. big bruv (13,572 comments) says:

    Does anybody expect Frog to come up with any other conclusion?

    The Greens can see the baubles of power and if that means they have to go into government with NZF and Labour then so be it.

    A vote for Labour is a vote for NZF and the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Now we keep hearing (not least from Winston Peters himself) what an master of the law Brian Henry is. Anyone want to seriously argue that if positions were reversed, Henry wouldn’t shred the credibility of a witness as poorly prepared, whose memory is so fuzzy as Henry’s has turned out to be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. thedavincimode (6,591 comments) says:

    Don’t you all see; Winston has proven his innocence. Now it is time for all you bloggers, the media piranhas, and the big business interests who have been trying to destroy the Winston for the last twenty years in order to subvert our democracy, to choke on the facts just as Winston said you would. We finally have all the facts; the true facts; the indisputable facts.

    Here are the indisputable facts. I’ve taken the liberty of filling in a couple of gaps in the memories of Winston and the nice Mr Henry but viewing this revised sequence of events as a whole, it is immediately apparent that these is not one single shred of evidence to disprove these additional true and indisputable facts.

    1. Mr Glen calls Winston at 1.27 pm. The call lasts about 6 1/2 minutes during which time there was a conversation regarding Mr Glen promoting NZ through the establishment of a Consulate in Monaco at no cost, why he (Mr Glen) would really appreciate a diplomatic passport, the horsies and the rugby. As any fair minded and impartial observer must concede, any discussion regarding money could simply not have taken place because there would have been insufficient time for such discussion within that time-frame, once those other matters had been discussed.

    2. At 1.33:30 pm, Winston looks up the nice Mr Henry’s phone number. The fact that he had to look it up because it wasn’t stored in his phone is further proof that they were not in contact regarding donations as has been alleged in the course of this outrageous media witch hunt.

    3. At 1.34pm, Winston called the nice Mr Henry to tell him that he had just spoken to Mr Glen who, at the conclusion of the call, had asked Winston to pass on a message to the nice Mr Henry; the message being that Mr Glen apologised for his appalling memory, explaining that he had mislaid the nice Mr Henry’s bank details, and asked that Mr Henry provide them once more. At the time he spoke to Mr Glen, Winston thought nothing of this however, when he spoke to the nice Mr Henry he asked the nice Mr Henry if he was doing work for Mr Glen. The nice Mr Henry said no; that it related to another matter. Winston asked him if there was anything that he (Winston) should be aware of and the nice Mr Henry said no. Winston continued to press the nice Mr Henry on the point because of his personal commitment to the highest standards of propriety. The fact that he spent 5 minutes on the phone pressing the nice Mr Henry on the point until he was absolutely satisfied that there was nothing that ought to be brought to his attention is indisputable proof of this explanation and there is not one single shred of evidence to dispute this fact.

    4. At 1.39 pm, the nice Mr Henry receved a call from a fourth person (Witness B) who advised him that he also had spoken to Mr Glen regarding assistance with legal costs that, coincidentally, also amounted to $100,000. This is where the nice Mr Henry’s memory is a little bit hazy. He was in fact correct at the outset when he told the Privileges Committee that his email referred to a telephone call with a person other than Winston and that the identity of that person cannot be revealed for reasons of client privilege. That position is unchanged although, let me just say that we might eventually have fresh light cast on the true identity of the person that threw Peter Plumley Walker’s body over the Huka Falls. The fact that Mr Glen’s phone records don’t disclose a phone call to Witness B is proof that this was an approach by Witness B to Mr Glen. Similarly, the absence of any phone records to prove that the nice Mr Henry did not make a call to Mr Glen only proves that Mr Henry’s version of the true facts is in fact correct and there is not one single shred of evidence to prove otherwise. Witness B advised that Mr Glen had been very embarassed to advise that he had lost Mr Henry’s bank details that he kept for the purposes of funding the nice Mr Henry’s clients’s legal costs. Clearly this is where all the confusion arises; the coincidence in that there are two sums of $100,000 involved. The fact that client privilege does not apply to the donations issue proves the existence of Witness B; to whom client privilege does apply

    6. The fact that the nice Mr Henry subsequently only received a single payment of $100,000 merely evidences that Mr Glen decided in hindsight that he did not wish to become embroiled in the matters involving Witness B (adding credibility to the hypothesis that this involved the Plumley Walker affair).

    7. The nice Mr Henry sent his email at 1.40pm.

    So there we have it. The true facts; the indisputable facts. Not only is there not one shred of hard evidence to disprove these facts, the documents provided by Mr Glen actually corroborate these facts. Furthermore, Mr Glen has admitted that he has an appalling memory which is exactly what Winston and the nice Mr Williams have said throughout this sorry affair.

    Next week…

    Why Winston was abducted by aliens and why they sent him back …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Hokey dokey…lets give Henry the benefit of the doubt ( stop laughing ) and assume that it was his mistaken memory that led him to genuinely believe the client in question was someone other than Peters who he couldn’t name. Given that he now realises it was actually Peters, is he able to tell us who he *thought* the client was during the week that he thought it wasn’t peters ? Does it break client confidientiality to talk about what didn’t happen with a client who wasn’t involved ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. burt (8,045 comments) says:

    stoliver

    I’m claiming ownership of that party name.

    see: The standard: Election date to be announced

    I hear that Labour and New Zealand First are to merge. The new party will be aptly named;

    Labour First.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Inventory2 (10,185 comments) says:

    Good one burt – I can even suggest a by-line (like NZ First’s “Keeping them honest”) – Labour First – Truth last

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Game, set, match – surely

    “Further to your discussion with my client”

    When do you start the sentence with “Further to” unless you are adding to the last relevant discussion, – in this case the donation, hence the bank account.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. dave strings (608 comments) says:

    RE:
    >
    >>he was staying in a motel that only kept phone records dating back to 2006.

    The motel is obliged to keep records, all the way back seven years to comply with the Tax laws. Telecom probably isn’t. It would need to keep invoice and payment details (in and out for both) but probably not the details of every call for that long. It would be like asking a newspaper to keep copies of every draft of an article – interesting but not germane.

    If the motel is named, the IRD could be onto them like an Indian curry through a stay at home POHM, but I don’t see any evidence that the motel was named.

    Also, let’s think about this. A top, QC, working for nothing (if he couldn’t get someone other than his ‘client’ to pay,) stays in a Motel when there are half decent Hotels in the area? I think not! Name the motel and we’ll find out what the real score is.

    DS

    PS

    Oh! Shit, what am I thinking! The number called, and the cost, would be on the Motel Bill, which he would need to claim against his income for tax purposes and justify the expense on his account to someone or other if he ever issued it, which he must have done to apply the income against it,unless it was a gift to him for work he hadn’t done because no one was asked via an account to pay for it. So HE, Himself, the Forgetful QC must have a copy in His Tax Records. Sheesh, I was nearly as dumb as he thought I was. Heck!
    Joe Public Lookalike (for a while there anyway)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    Mr Peters?

    It’s Bob from Hirepool, got that extra-long-handle shovel you ordered. Had to have it specially made, cause they don’t usually come that long. Where do you want me to…

    what? you want a longer one? Mr Peters, they don’t come any longer. May I make a suggestion?

    Stop digging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    It’s enough to drive you to tears eh Winston?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. bka (135 comments) says:

    The fascinating thing about this second client is that they liked Peters/Henry enough to help them get huge donations but now hate them enough to hang them out to dry for months! Considering the matter wasn’t strictly legal business, you’d think BH would have plenty of motivation to identify them and claim it didn’t come under privelege. Is he saying that he was working under the instructiions of the client in going out to get the donations to himself for the pro bono work he was doing for Peters?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. wreck1080 (3,821 comments) says:

    You might be wrong about telecom keeping every single phone record for seven years. I would say their retention policy is probably in the months not years.

    And, even if they did, it it might be a bit of effort to retrieve them.

    And, why can’t peters be forced to produce his phone bills? IRD requires bills to be kept for seven years. At the very least, if winnie has destroyed his phone records the ird should audit him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    The sad thing is that in the final wash, the pursuit of truth may be set aside for political expediency. Very frustrating. I would have thought we should demand a higher standard from our elected representatives, not a lower one!

    And even more frustrating, there are plenty of Labour supporters prepared to overlook this ethically bereft government in order to vote for them again.

    This should be a clarion call to arms for every honest man and woman in the country to make sure you register, and vote, and make sure that this government is thrown out on it’s arse. Everyone in the house needs to be reminded that you govern only with the consent of the governed. This current government has forgotten that, and seem to think they have a god-given right to govern.

    That is the only explanation for the contempt they have shown towards the electorate. They must think we are thick as sheep, and should be herded as such!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ErrolC (18 comments) says:

    Murray (1460) Says:

    September 16th, 2008 at 11:52 am
    The lawyer is lying his ass off by the looks of it. How well does that go down in court?

    More importantly, can the Law Society investigation get him to tell them who the mystery client is? So if the said client doesn’t exist, he can lose his licence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Dock (43 comments) says:

    Errol………

    If you look at the transcripts Henry has already admitted that the Phantom client was in fact Winston Peters.

    He has admitted this to the enquiry but said that he solicited funds from Glenn on his own bat and not at the behest of Peters.

    The fact that he talked to him a minute before just jogged his memory to again solicit funds from Glenn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. vmcrns (19 comments) says:

    Well, at least one other satirical soul was thinking along the same lines as me i.e. Monty Python’s – ‘The Life of Brian’ as this hilarious youtube clip shows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_QJNIyCle8

    And we all know how that story ends – crucifixion. The question is – does the Priv Comm have that power?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. ErrolC (18 comments) says:

    Dock, it’s the previously ‘mis-remembered’ client that I was refering to. The one that Henry initially thought he was referring to when giving Glenn his account details. If Henry didn’t actually have a client that Henry would be holding money from Glenn on behalf of, then he lied. What standards does the Law Society require? Balance of probability?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4694668a6160.html
    Mr Henry also said there was a second ‘client’ who he had referred to in his earlier evidence to the committee.

    He said he had contacted the second ‘client’ with a request to see whether he would be prepared to waive privilege.

    The second ‘client’ had refused to waive privilege through his solicitor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    Hang on, I’ve just remembered! I am the mis-remembered client, and Brian Henry owes me $100,000 dollars.

    Can I e-mail him my account details.

    To my bank.

    In Nigeria!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. burt (8,045 comments) says:

    He said he had contacted the second ‘client’ with a request to see whether he would be prepared to waive privilege.

    So there is another $100,000 donation we don’t know about? Was it declared? Oh the webs we weave….

    WINSTON – JUST RESIGN AND TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT IT ALL. YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. polemic (430 comments) says:

    Please Helen hang on to him.

    Dear Ms Simpson,

    It is with the greatest respect I write to you.

    I greatly respect you political nous and experience and I am fearful you would consider dispensing with Mr. Peters. My suggestion is that you should at all costs hang onto Mr. Winston Peters.
    He is far more use to you than being against you and I am sure he will be exonerated from all his enquiries and he is definitely not what the media portray him to be.

    While it appears like you opponents a gaining a lot of mileage from you position on Mr. Peters but don’t believe it that’s only media spin and after all you are far better at it than they are.

    I don’t think National is getting any gain from the issue and after all the public can see right thru the awful way the media have ganged up on him .

    Frankly its not fear.

    Yours truly,
    Uncle Polemic.( Junior Cleaners assistant-National Party High Polls Dept)

    Ps People are saying this but dont believe it.

    A vote for Winston = a vote for Labour = a vote for corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. burt (8,045 comments) says:

    polemic

    A vote for Winston = a vote for Labour = a vote for corruption.

    That is one of mine as well…..

    burt on : Key rules Peters out

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Right of way – I have your 100,000 and I tried to call but I’m not sure it was you who answered the cellphone. I think we discussed money but I’m not sure. Anyway I have no bill recording the 100,000 but I think it got paid by someone from a trust I didn’t previously know existed. Hope that clears it all up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Ross Miller (1,682 comments) says:

    This is a serious post (well, most of my posts are serious). I have just finished discussing the Henry relevations with a barrister colleague of mine. His take on it was instructive.

    First, a step back. Remember the slightly breathless reporting earlier this morning (from NZF sources) that the Henry testimony would finally clear Winston.

    Did that happen? No, in fact the opposite happened with Henry changing his story and, in doing so, giving credance to the Glenn version of events.

    My colleagues take. A barristers duty is to defend his client to the max but not to the point where he may be putting himself in danger of a charge of professional misconduct. What you saw today was Henry distancing himself from his earlier statements and, by extension, Winston.

    Henry is clearly donning a lifejacket in order to protect himself.

    Any other barrister out there care to comment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. adc (582 comments) says:

    Calling Monaco from a hotel room would be punitively expensive. It would be clear on the hotel bill, and hotels like the rest of us need to keep records for 7 years.

    As for how long telecom keeps records, I think you’ll find it’s quite a long time – the logs are used in all manner of criminal cases by the police. I wouldn’t be surprised if telecom has logs still from the first calls placed through their digital exchanges well over a decade ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    Winston
    Has
    Intimate
    Totally
    Embarrassing
    Worrying
    Ammunition
    Subjugating
    Helen

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. dad4justice (7,988 comments) says:

    Surprise, surprise yet another lawyer caught telling lies. What’s the bet he’s a judge by lunchtime tomorrow?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. NX (603 comments) says:

    Clark obviously has more to lose than Peters.

    In that regard Peters is in a powerful position – even more so than H2. And that is just a shocking indictment on our democracy.

    He has her over a barrel.

    Just think for a moment if you were in Peter’s position.

    Once Peters realises that his reputation is tarnished beyond redemption – he should spill the beans. Bringing down a Prime Minster would take him off the front pages & he might even earn some respect for finally telling the truth.
    He would certainly raise in my expectations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.