Macsyna King and ‘that book’
June 29th, 2011 at 10:26 am by JadisAs we have all heard by now Ian Wishart has produced a book about Macsyna King. Perhaps memories are short but through Chris Kahui’s trial we got a picture of Macsyna’s life. Yes, Macsyna has had a hard and awful life, but she has had several opportunities to make a difference to the lives and memories of her children.
- If Macsyna was so concerned about the environment she was introducing her twins to she could have adopted them out to a family that could have ensured a safer and healthier environment.
- If Macsyna suspected abuse or neglect from herself or others within her household she could have spoken up for her babies… yes, she could have spoken anonymously or otherwise to CYFS, the Police, a Not-for-profit, Plunket, and others. Her previous children are cared for by others, why not these babies?
- She could have kept her eyes open. Macsyna either never noticed or didn’t care about injuries caused to the twins in previous “attacks” or incidents.
- After the hospitalisation of her babies, Macsyna could have spoken to the Police fully about what she did know.
- Macsyna could have encouraged others in her family to speak to the Police.
- Macsyna could have told her story to the court throughout the trial. Indeed she did do this, but why not the whole story (as suggested by Wishart)?
- And, she certainly could have told her story to the coronial inquest.
- Macsyna has even had multiple opportunities to talk to mainstream, sensitive interviewers where she could have told her story in a non-confrontational way.
Macsyna has had multiple opportunities to put this right, and she has chosen the one forum where her words can be edited, where her words can be put in a better light, and where she can release her guilt. Or, she’s decided that she can make money and perhaps fame from the deaths of her children. I would be very interested to hear from Ian Wishart if Macsyna has received any ‘gifts’ or ‘expenses paid’ during the production of the book – and what about the marketing of the book? Will Macsyna be involved in that? Will she receive an appearance fee?
Putting aside the rationale for the book, the timing of the book is appalling in itself. Wishart has chosen to market the book during the coronial inquest into the death of the twins. The moment where the media interest in the twins is at its highest. It is important for Wishart to talk about the book now as, potentially, when the inquest is over the media interest will also wain.
To say that it is ghoulish and unsympathetic is understatement of the year.
Those babies deserved to have a good Mother, a good Father, people that cared for them. They deserved to be fed, to be held and most of all, they deserved a future. Macsyna, Chris and the wider whanau may not have been able to do that but there were otehr options. And, let’s be honest that Macsyna has had plenty of opportunities to atone herself, to tell her story and to put her children before herself.
Wishart says that any profits from the book will be given to charity. Which one? Which charity CEO or Board in their right mind will accept money made from this book, effectively guilt money (if not blood money)?
Of course the book should not be banned. Banning books is a horribly, slippery slope. We, as consumers have the freedom to buy the book or reject the book. That means we can boycott the book, and any other books by this publisher – Howling at the Moon. Wishart could have redeemed himself. If he had published this book with the intention to bring justice in this matter or to hand over the guilty killer. Sadly, Ian Wishart has positioned himself as sensationalist, and undermined any previous reputation he had for investigative reporting.
June 29th, 2011 at 10:30 am
Her previous children are cared for by others, why not these babies?
Her previous children are cared for that children’s father. It says something about Macsyne’s fitness that despite having held her and the kids at gunpoint and gone to prison for it, the father has sole custody of the kids.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:33 am
After the hospitalisation of her babies, Macsyna could have spoken to the Police fully about what she did know
She did eventually speak to the Police about what she did know. So much so, that the police had to resort to immunity from prosecution agreements in exchange for her testimony. Despite this, no conviction.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:38 am
….”undermined any previous reputation he had for investigative reporting”.
Vote:Really?
June 29th, 2011 at 10:39 am
Also, anyone who thinks that any story she gives in this book is the full story, the true story, or even close to the true story is either incredibly naive or gullible. This book disgusts me, I hope no-one buys it, but as DPF says, disagree with any calls to ban it. If people want to protest outside any book signings (God forbid!) then good on them too.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:40 am
Who is the publisher?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:42 am
Publisher is Howling at the Moon – Wishart’s.
Odysseus – that was said with some jest
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:48 am
Wishart had a reputation?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:53 am
DPF…..
Vote:Well said !
June 29th, 2011 at 10:55 am
Wishart is one of the few investigative journalists we have left. I assume all those commenting above have actually read the book.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:59 am
I haven’t read the book and don’t plan to, purely because it;s not something that interests me to the point of being that informed, but I do trust Wishart and his judgement.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:00 am
This article isn’t by DPF. My reader says ‘Jadis’.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:19 am
Agree 100% Jadis. This matter is still being dealt with by the legal system (via the inquest), and surely, if Wishart has “new information” which could be material to the case or which could lead to a prosecution, his first responsibility is to provide it to the relevant investigating authority, rather than seek commercial reward from it.
I have been an admirer and defender of Wishart, but I believe that he has erred in judgment here. Like you, I oppose a ban on the book, but a boycott is different; it will hit the publisher where it hurts.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Sheesh, read “The Divinity Code” and re-think that…actually just read the back cover. Anyone who can publish that rubbish does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone with even half a brain.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:22 am
I have bought and read many of Ian’s books and presently subscribe to Investigate. I think he has made a serious mistake publishing this book mainly for the reasons DPF stated. I will email him to let him know the issue is being discussed on KB.
Hopefully, he will answer the question about “gifts” or expenses”.
I also hope those who disagree with him will be reasonably civil unlike those on the facebook page.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Wishart is a “fundie” therefore profuckengressives love to hate him.
Two dead babies ,lots of profuckengressive outrage. Thousands of aborted babies,…..silence.
Dr Kelly tells inquest NZ among highest world rate of child sex abuse……..that must be our Catholic scapegoats commiting those offences.
Until our “families” become real ,traditional families again this shit won’t stop.
Lefties and gutless National MPs can change the law (smacking) and criminalise good folk but the slaughter goes on.
So much for feminists ,equality and the progressive agenda.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:30 am
Must admit that Wishart has taken a step back in my eyes – when he wrote Absolute Power, he opined (along the lines) that readers could judge the veracity of the contents by whether he was served with a defamation suit within a week of the book hitting the stands. Well, he wasn’t served and despite head grinch being notably unimpressed with the book, it wasn’t updated / nothing was retracted / no apologies made.
But now this.
Setting aside the subject matter, the timing of the release is appalling. My own ‘protest’ will be my decision not to buy it. Calls for a boycott are futile – Wishart has done nothing wrong (apart from interviewing a dopey bint and publishing his interpretation of events).
But his timing is awful. Not flash at all.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:32 am
Points 2 through 8 can be countered by culture. Macsyna wasn’t a comfortable white middle class house wife. To suggest she could or should’ve behaved like one is ridiculous. As for release timings, it’s just “good marketing”. Whether is it morally right is debateable, but in my experience, there aren’t any business decisions that attempt to defer to a moral compass that also includes Victorian social etiquette.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:34 am
Those mongrel mob females and housing corp case- I thought radionz said they had 14 children????
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:35 am
An in depth analysis is not what you are going to get from this book, that will have to come at a later date when the inquest concludes. As well as that the Coroners findings will be far more definitive than anything published in this book.
Vote:Without passing judgement on who did what and when, the old axiom of “attack is better than defense” is at play here.
June 29th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Macsina King, the best possible case for compulsory sterilisation.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:42 am
“Macsyna wasn’t a comfortable white middle class house wife. To suggest she could or should’ve behaved like one is ridiculous.”
Not as ridiculous as your comment. Any mother regardless of race or financial standing should not not abuse or negligent her children or allow anyone else to.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:56 am
It’s overdue as both a society and as a legal system that we stopped skirting about the fact that there are scum.
Vote:As for Wishart – Once was investigative. Now clearly established as a bottom feeder.
June 29th, 2011 at 11:58 am
> Macsyna wasn’t a comfortable white middle class house wife.
Are you saying that comfortable middle class house wives don’t maltreat their kids? If so, you’d be wrong. Similarly, there are plenty of women (and men) living on the bread line. They don’t abuse their kids. There is no excuse for child abuse.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
“Points 2 through 8 can be countered by culture. Macsyna wasn’t a comfortable white middle class house wife. ”
Vote:These kids were fucking brutalised to death for fucks sake. And you put inaction down to her personal discomfort in an alien culture! Is it only “white middle class mothers” who cherish and look after their kids and do something if they are killed? If that is the sort of excuse we get for this behaiviour then, as a society, we are well and truly fucked.
June 29th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
What a prissy bunch – tut tutting over a book you don’t approve of.
Nobody’s going to make you read it.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
The ‘conspiricy of silence’ would suggest they all had a hand in the abuse. Wishart gets my award for “disingenuous bastard” of the year.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
It is not the book that excites disapproval. It’s everything that has happened ( in Macsyna’s case, hasn’t happened) since two 3-month babies were bashed to death. Now we are going to get a sanitised version of what happened. If you think that the outrage that is being displayed is being “prissy” then you must have a very high level of tolerance to shameful behaiviour.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Didn’t the defence team for Mr Kahui, exposed Mcsyna as a liar? She claimed to be at a different location when the twins were supposedly injured, while her mobile phone location location (when she made phone call at that specific time) showed she was in a different place? Perhaps she is claiming to be a quantum particle, ie, being at 2 places at once.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Agree 100% she is the case for sterilsation. And before the MOB attack stop and think about the results not just with her but with many others. Fact is health professioals and others l can and should be able to identify potential cases before they happen.
I mean Jeez as an employer I have to identify health and safety hazards in the work place and take steps to eliminate them. I dont get a let off if I fail and the same goes for every other employer. If we stuff up we get hit and we get hard.
Yet in these cases even after the inevitable no shit Sherlock could see it coming happens NOTHING ZIP ZERO except the wringing of the lefties couldnt give a shit really hands.
Until our pollies get the guts to deal with the issues the deaths maimings will continue and will increase.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
This is an unfortunate case, to say the least. What can King add to our knowledge that she could not have said to the Police, in court or at the inquest?
A man was charged with this vile crime; and found not guilty. Anyone who was going to add to the evidence available has had the chance already.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“The ‘conspiricy of silence’ would suggest they all had a hand in the abuse.”
Does anyone remember who is largely responsible for conspiracy of silence? Peter Sharples stuck his spoke in where he should no have. He had no business going into the house and blocking the police enquiry. I hope the coroner condemns this interference by an MP.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Are people here suggesting compulsory state sterilisation before any crime is committed?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Look at the way her name is spelt. Her parents doomed her through stupid name syndrome.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Ben
Don’t think so. She had a track record beforehand.
I wouldn’t be into compulsory sterilisation but definitely am into mandatoy disclose of information.
I seem to recall that this coroner was less than impressed with Kahui. I am hoping that he will deliver a rocket to all those who deserve it. And I hope that the report is more widely read than the book.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
I am a fan of Wishart and will continue buying his publications……
However……
He fucked up in an interview with Larry Williams last night:
Williams asked him who got in touch with who.
He replied she phoned him.
Williams then asked how did she know who you were.
He replied she had read his Arthur Allan Thomas book and she wanted a similar book written about her story.
At the end of the interview Williams again asked “how did she know how to get hold of you”.
He replied……
From friends or family or a landlord or something.
First time I’ve heard Wishart fuck up big time and Williams didn’t clobber him!!!
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
1.If Macsyna was so concerned about the environment she was introducing her twins to she could have adopted them out to a family that could have ensured a safer and healthier environment.
Macsyna didn’t realise someone had injured the twins.
2.If Macsyna suspected abuse or neglect from herself or others within her household she could have spoken up for her babies… yes, she could have spoken anonymously or otherwise to CYFS, the Police, a Not-for-profit, Plunket, and others. Her previous children are cared for by others, why not these babies?
She did not suspect abuse – she was as surprised as everyone else to discover it. She then spoke to Police to help gain a conviction
3.She could have kept her eyes open. Macsyna either never noticed or didn’t care about injuries caused to the twins in previous “attacks” or incidents.
The injuries had to be picked up by scans. Babies are incredibly fragile. She didn’t notice anything unusual
4.After the hospitalisation of her babies, Macsyna could have spoken to the Police fully about what she did know.
She did speak to police fully about what she knew
5.Macsyna could have encouraged others in her family to speak to the Police.
She turned her own brother in to police
6.Macsyna could have told her story to the court throughout the trial. Indeed she did do this, but why not the whole story (as suggested by Wishart)?
Macsyna answered the questions she was asked. I asked some different questions.
7.And, she certainly could have told her story to the coronial inquest.
Ditto
8.Macsyna has even had multiple opportunities to talk to mainstream, sensitive interviewers where she could have told her story in a non-confrontational way.
Bollocks
As for compensation. I purchased a Domino’s pizza for lunch during one of the interviews, does that count?
What a bunch of armchair experts firing off half-cocked.
For an audio grab from the interviews, visit http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2011/06/news-release-on-ian-wisharts-kahui-case-book-breaking-silence.html
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Wishart is a weirdo. He probably believes the Mafia killed JFK, the CIA killed Norm Kirk, 9/11 was an inside job, all Muslims are jihadists, fluoride in the water is a mind-control experiment, vaccination causes autism and Jesus is the son of God.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
@Michael
You wrote:
At the end of the interview Williams again asked “how did she know how to get hold of you”.
He replied……
From friends or family or a landlord or something.
First time I’ve heard Wishart fuck up big time and Williams didn’t clobber him!!!
I think either you misheard, or I didn’t interpret his question the way you have. I was recommended to Macsyna by a landlord apparently…who either passed on to her or urged her to buy a copy of the Thomas book which she did. She then made contact via my office. No “fuck up”.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
So, Ian
Vote:Macsyna was an innocent victim, oblivious of what was happening?
I think I will wait to read the coroner’s decision.
June 29th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
“That means we can boycott the book, and any other books by this publisher – Howling at the Moon. Wishart could have redeemed himself. If he had published this book with the intention to bring justice in this matter or to hand over the guilty killer. Sadly, Ian Wishart has positioned himself as sensationalist, and undermined any previous reputation he had for investigative reporting.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Really?
How about getting the FACTS – from Ian Wishart directly?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2011/06/news-release-on-ian-wisharts-kahui-case-book-breaking-silence.html
News release on Ian Wishart’s Kahui case book, Breaking Silence
NEWS RELEASE FROM IAN WISHART
The Facebook page on Macsyna King is dishonest. They have known all along that Macsyna has neither sought nor been offered any money or compensation for the book Breaking Silence by Ian Wishart.
Still, the anonymous woman behind the Boycott Macsyna site continues to peddle her claim, knowing it to be untrue.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
EVIDENCE THAT THE ‘BOYCOTT MACSYNA’ FACEBOOK SITE IS BASED ON LIES –
THAT “Macsyna is about to release a book that will allow her to profit from her attrocious deeds.”
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book/140832719326817?sk=info
Boycott the Macsyna King Book
About
Macsyna King is about to release a book which will allow her to profit from her attrocious deeds.
Description
Macsyna King, the mother (and I use that in a purely biological sense and not a maternal one) of the Chris and Kru Kahui is about to release a tell all (and by all, I mean the bits she remembers which won’t incriminate her further) book about the tragic murder of her three month old twin babies.
I am trying to organize a boycott of this book and until such time as it is pulled from the shelves, all other Ian Wishart books and all other books by the publisher.
Somebody like this should not be allowed to profit from preaching her perverted view of the horrific events which led to the deaths of the only two children who hadn’t already been taken from her by CYF’s.
Website
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/inquest-…
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IAN WISHART CONFIRMS: ‘Ms King was not getting any money out of the book’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10735205
Anti-Kahui book group is a ‘lynch mob’
Mr Wishart has spoken out against the angry Facebook posts on the ‘Boycott the Macsyna King Book’ page in an interview with TVNZ.
Many of the posts accuse Ms King of profiting from the death of her sons and call for violence against her.
………….
Ms King was not getting any money out of the book, Mr Wishart said.
He said he would be collecting profits from sales, but most would go to book stores and he would be left with a “wage on the table”.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Who from the ‘Kiwiblog LYNCH MOB’ would like to have a go at me – because you don’t like the FACTS and HONEST OPINION that I am putting forward?
Fill your boots.
I support Ian Wishart 100% on this one.
Good on him.
If Ian Wishart’s book ‘Breaking the Silence’, which he has taken the time to research and write, helps to reopen the Police inquiry into the killing of the Kahui baby boys, and results in a conviction, following LAWFUL DUE PROCESS – then that will surely be the outcome most people want?
I don’t begrudge Ian Wishart making money from writing and publishing this book.
That’s what he does for a living, and he has a family to look after.
Isn’t that what people want?
The ‘silence’ about child abuse to be ‘broken’?
Especially in this Kahui case?
Full credit to Ian Wishart.
I look forward to exercising my lawful right to buy and read ‘Breaking the Silence’, and hope thousands of other decent, thinking New Zealanders do likewise.
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
C’mon Ms Bright, you’ve simply chosen to jump on this bandwagon to use as a political vehicle
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Nookin (962) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
So, Ian
Macsyna was an innocent victim, oblivious of what was happening?
I think I will wait to read the coroner’s decision.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
There’s a difference between being an ‘unfit’ or ‘neglectful’ mother, and being a ‘killer’.
Did Macsyna kill her baby boys?
I don’t know. Ian Wishart doesn’t think so. I am interested in reading why he holds this arguably ‘well-considered’ opinion.
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
kingofthejuice (24) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
C’mon Ms Bright, you’ve simply chosen to jump on this bandwagon to use as a political vehicle
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Really ‘kingofthejuice’?
Yes – that would be profoundly politically astute of me – wouldn’t it?
To jump headfirst into the ‘boiling water’ and support a position which at this stage is so wildly unpopular?
Unlike many ‘Kiwibloggers’ – I am NOT a ‘sheep’ and am prepared to ‘swim against the tide’ on a matter of principle.
Unlike most ‘Kiwibloggers’ – I have a proven track record in defending ‘freedom of expression’.
I’m sticking my neck out over this issue, and defending Ian Wishart’s right to ‘freedom of expression’ – because he is defending OUR right to ‘freedom of expression’.
If you don’t know your rights – you don’t have any.
If you don’t defend the rights you’re supposed to have – you lose them.
However – I know from experience – that BAD things can be turned into GOOD things.
The worse things are – the proportionately better than can become, once they reach ‘tipping’ point.
As the truth comes out on this issue – the tide will turn.
Mark my words………..
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Fair enough Ms. Bright. Point well spun.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
kingofthejuice (26) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Fair enough Ms. Bright. Point well spun.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Think you mean ‘point well argued’?
Kind regards
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
So Macsayna isn’t getting a brass razoo from the sale of this book…she decided to come forward out of the kindness of her heart. My faith in humanity has been rekindled.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Jesus Christ can’t DPF put Penny in the same box as PhilU?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
I read the Paradise Conspiracy. I enjoyed that. Then I read some of his other stuff when he went off the deep end.
I do love the ironic comments about abortions. If you want to see more children subjected to this kind of abuse, then by all means, stop allowing abortions in New Zealand. Let’s see how well that improves things.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I’m afraid I can’t scroll through all the preceding PB krap to ascertain if it has already been mentioned, but the Warehouse and Paper Plus have announced they will not sell the book.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Wishart is an excellent investigative journalist. The reaction above and talks of a boycott make little sense to me.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
I have just been into the archives at ZB and re-listened to the interview…. It could go either way but I will take your word for what you are trying to say but you have said it backwards.
You should have said a landlord or something recommended my book that she then read and then got hold of me….
Vote:splitting hair maybe.
June 29th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
This is very pathetic.
A good reason to support Whitcoulls
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5206282/Chains-boycott-book-on-Kahui-twins-death
Do we not get a choice anymore?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Jesus Christ can’t DPF put Penny in the same box as PhilU?
What a disappointing insult to Phil U.
Vote:He keeps to himself and now runs a quite exemplary blog with an interesting range of items which I regularly have a look at, long before kiwiblog gets there in the morning.
Try it and see how unfair the comparison is.
June 29th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
I don’t really support bans, especially of books, or boycotts, and I ain’t too fussed about lynch mobs, either.
I doubt that I would have much in common with Alasdair Thompson, for example, but the howling mob response to him was unedifying.
Now, Macsyna King and Ian Wishart: they have every right to do what they’re doing, and as long as no laws are broken and the laws of defamation are observed.
What does disturb me is that she has apparently elected this means (a book) to make her story known. The people of New Zealand might have preferred that she had told the police and the courts and the coroner of the inquest everything she knows.
I’m unlikely to buy the book for that reason.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Wishart
Kindly fuck off and push your tatty little penny thriller elsewhere. The only thing sillier than believing anything the Kahui clan have to say is believing any of your shock horror expose probe bollocks.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
TripeWryter
I’m with you on this. She has had multiple opportunities to say what she knew. Anything new revealed in the book would just beg the question of why say something now?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
How would we go if ‘Bishop’ Brian Tamaki told us not to read the book?
Vote:Or Phil Goff?
Or Paper Plus or the Warehouse?
June 29th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Michaels (1,153) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
This is very pathetic.
A good reason to support Whitcoulls
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5206282/Chains-boycott-book-on-Kahui-twins-death
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is a bloody disgrace.
The ANONYMOUS person who set up the facebook site – has LIED – and is stopping Ian Wishart from selling his books through the Warehouse and Paper Plus.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book/140832719326817?sk=info
Boycott the Macsyna King Book
About
Macsyna King is about to release a book which will allow her to profit from her attrocious deeds.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
How can that be ‘lawful’?
WHO SET UP THIS FACEBOOK SITE AND HAS LIED TO THE PUBLIC?
He/she should be sued.
‘Freedom of expression’ does not extend to telling LIES about people.
How many people would have joined that facebook site if they knew the truth?
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Yvette
Probably the only way I could ever be enticed to read about such a group of losers would be if a senior representative of the God Squad or a halfwit such as Phil Goff suggested otherwise.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
thedavincimode (1,877) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Wishart
Kindly fuck off and push your tatty little penny thriller elsewhere. The only thing sillier than believing anything the Kahui clan have to say is believing any of your shock horror expose probe bollocks.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
errr…. and you KNOW Ian Wishart’s book ‘Breaking the Silence’ is a ‘tatty little penny thriller’ HOW EXACTLY, ‘thedavincimode’?
Or do you and ‘Nookin’ share the same ‘ESP’ device?
Gosh – I wish I had your obviously great powers of insight and dispassionate wisdom ‘thedavincimode’.
My most deeply respectful salutations,
Penny Bright
http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
(ok – I admit it – just kidding…………….
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
A good analysis of the situation here:
Vote:http://www.3news.co.nz/Boycotting-Macsyna-King-book-is-a-dangerous-precedent/tabid/423/articleID/216962/Default.aspx
June 29th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Penny
Should The Warehouse and Whitcoullls be obligedto sell the book?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
mikenmild (698) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
TripeWryter
I’m with you on this. She has had multiple opportunities to say what she knew. Anything new revealed in the book would just beg the question of why say something now?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
So ‘mikenmild ‘ and ‘TripeWryter’ – neither of you are interested in the TRUTH, or the possible reopening of the Kahui case in order to get a conviction (based on FACTS and EVIDENCE – not lynch mob ‘justice’?)
Perhaps you missed what ian Wishart actually said himself on this matter, in this earlier post?
Ian Wishart (44) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
6.Macsyna could have told her story to the court throughout the trial. Indeed she did do this, but why not the whole story (as suggested by Wishart)?
Macsyna answered the questions she was asked. I asked some different questions.
7.And, she certainly could have told her story to the coronial inquest.
Ditto
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Good on you Ian Wishart.
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
mikenmild (699) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Penny
Should The Warehouse and Whitcoullls be obligedto sell the book?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If The Warehouse and PaperPlus (NOT Whitcoulls) earlier agreed to sell it, and have changed their minds as a result of public pressure which has been based on LIES – then they most definitely should be obliged to sell the book.
I want to know the name of the person who set up the Facebook site and LIED to the public.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book/140832719326817?sk=info
I would like to see them sued – to set an example to others not to go down that track.
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
A change of format & Water Woman might get some traction on the issue.
I don’t want to read the book mostly because the issue has been done to death & not one individual from the families involved could lie straight in bed. Screaming for a book to be banned is a totally different story. Ian Wishart wrote the book as was within his rights & anyone who wishes to part with their hard earned coin & buy it has a right to their actions.
That has nothing to do with the “reef fish” boycott by Whitcoulls & Paper Plus although they also are acting within their rights to stock the book or not. Those protesting should be looking over their shoulders to see what comes after book banning.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
What if it is their honest opinion?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
For what could you sue organisers of a boycott? Would that be as successful as your other lawsuits, Penny?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
mikenmild (706) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
For what could you sue organisers of a boycott? Would that be as successful as your other lawsuits, Penny?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
errr… try and keep up with the play ‘mikenmild’.
The organiser of the facebook page has LIED about the basis upon which the facebook page was established:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book/140832719326817?sk=info
Boycott the Macsyna King Book
About
Macsyna King is about to release a book which will allow her to profit from her attrocious deeds.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
NOT TRUE.
People have been LIED to on this pivotal point.
WHOEVER was responsible for setting up that facebook page and LYING – should be held accountable.
Not sure how one would best establish the identity of this person.
Any ideas?
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
“… how one would best establish the identity of this person.”
Surely the Bangalore principles would provide some insight here.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
thedavinci
ROFL!!!
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
publicwatchdog (746) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
errr… try and keep up with the play ‘mikenmild’.
The organiser of the facebook page has LIED about the basis upon which the facebook page was established:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book/140832719326817?sk=info
Boycott the Macsyna King Book
About
Macsyna King is about to release a book which will allow her to profit from her attrocious deeds.
NOT TRUE.
People have been LIED to on this pivotal point.
WHOEVER was responsible for setting up that facebook page and LYING – should be held accountable.
Not sure how one would best establish the identity of this person.
Any ideas?
Penny Bright
http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
—————————————————————
Yesh, if your mate Siemer was held accountable for his lies, why shouldn’t others? Seriously, Penny, if you think that Facebook statement is defamation, who will you sue?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Best look in the register of preclusive interests.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
thedavincimode (1,879) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
“… how one would best establish the identity of this person.”
Surely the Bangalore principles would provide some insight here.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
errr…. probably NOT ‘thedavincimode’.
You really do need to pay a bit more attention.
The Bangalore Principles are a judicial ‘Code of Conduct’ written by Judges for Judges.
So – not particularly helpful in this case?
But thanks for trying………..
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Nookin (963) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Best look in the register of preclusive interests.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Support ‘book banning’ do you ‘Nookin’?
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Book banning. What’s next? Book burning?
Vote:I’ll stick with Amazon and to hell with those two tacky gift shops that also sell a few books. Paper Plus even has recommended reads by that giant intellect Kerry Woodham for god’s sake.
It seems Kiwis are going to be treated like babies by everyone. No wonder so many of us act like babies too.
June 29th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Really??!!
Goodness me. There I was thinking that they were just like the Bible – with an answer for everything.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
BeaB, maybe she works there??
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Raybon Kan says it very well on Twitter
That’s one heck of a message in less than 140 characters; take note Penny
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
To Penny Bright:
Just read again what I say, and please don’t try to put words into my mouth.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
BeaB @ 4.47pm said “Book banning. What’s next? Book burning?”
Who has banned or burned it?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
To Ian Wishart, this taken from James Murray’s blog, which you linked to: “We learn nothing about how to stop or reduce child abuse by not listening to what Macsyna King has to say.”
Oh? How does that work, do you think?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Not at all Penelope. Just freedom of choice to make up my own mind — just as the chain stores have (without any encouragement from me).
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
K Reed- “Points 2 through 8 can be countered by culture. Macsyna wasn’t a comfortable white middle class house wife. To suggest she could or should’ve behaved like one is ridiculous”
K Reed- You are to be congratulated. That is the single most batshit insane thing I have ever read on Kiwiblog. (Sorry Penny the torch has been passed..)
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
18,000 people have voted on Stuff to boycott the book.
It doesn’t poll on how many of those would not have boycotted and would have bought the book if it was released at a different time, if it was different twins, if it was a different mother or if it was a different author or publisher.
It also doesn’t poll on how many more people will buy the book because of the boycott publicity.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Longknives
Vote:Come now, be fair. K Reed may have scored number one but Penny wins for endurance. She holds place numbers 2- 749 and climbing.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
The book has NOT been “banned”. Some book stores have chosen not to stock it, as they presumably choose not to stock many other books. Surely this is their right? Or should book stores be COMPELLED to stock certain books?
There will be plenty of other retailers selling the book, I am sure.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Penny, take the horizontal lines out of your posts and stop double spacing lines. That may encourage others to actually read your posts rather than swear and scroll past. – Thank you
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Longknives (268) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
K Reed- “Points 2 through 8 can be countered by culture. Macsyna wasn’t a comfortable white middle class house wife. To suggest she could or should’ve behaved like one is ridiculous”
K Reed- You are to be congratulated. That is the single most batshit insane thing I have ever read on Kiwiblog. (Sorry Penny the torch has been passed..)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
hmmm……………… it seems that I just can’t win with some of you ‘Kiwibloggers’?
If I put some time and effort into careful researching and provide links and helpful quotes in order to substantiate my considered opinion with FACTS and EVIDENCE- some of you ungraciously whinge and whine about my ‘formatting’.
Of course some of you who are less politically sophisticated, and can’t handle robust debate on the issues – choose to categorise my considered but DIFFERENT opinions as ‘batshit insane’.
whatever………………sigh………….
I live in hope that those to whom I am referring just GROW UP (politically) – preferably sooner rather than later?
Kind regards
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
“careful researching and provide links and helpful quotes in order to substantiate my considered opinion with FACTS and EVIDENCE”
Certifiable.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Penny says: “choose to categorise my considered but DIFFERENT opinions as ‘batshit insane’.”
Penny – stop being an idiot. Not every post on Kiwiblog is about you!
Go read it again…. (sigh).. the comment referred to K. Reed.
ZZZzzzzzzz
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
To be fair to penny, I think most of us glancing upon the term batshit insane would assume it refers to her
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
“I live in hope that those to whom I am referring just GROW UP (politically) – preferably sooner rather than later?”
Oh, is this a political debate? I thought we were talking about a couple of brutalised babies, the fact that noone has been brought to account and the fact that the mum is about to have her own sanitised version publicised.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Nookin (966) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
‘… the mum is about to have her own sanitised version publicised’
Got your ESP on turbodrive have you ‘Nookin’?
Just incredible how YOU know what’s in ‘Breaking the Silence’ without having yet read it?
WOW!
How IMPRESSIVE is THAT?
(yawn…………)
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
It’s called life experience Penny. You should go and get some. Tilting at windmills has left you somewhat concussed and very angry with the world.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Nothing has been banned, two chains have elected not to stock a book whose audience is essentially limited to certifiable fucktards, presumably they don’t think they have enough of that sector amongst their clientele for it to be worth stocking . Mr Wishart appears to have no such qualms, but who cares, his choice of business model is his own business.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Penny Not-too-bright – any version that Maxina ( I can’t bring myself to type that ludicrous ghetto spelling) writes that doesn’t name the killer, is sanitised.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Spell MACSYNA backwards – A-N-Y-S-C-A-M
How fitting…
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
This is absurd. Why is everyone shooting the messenger? It was the Police that failed to get a conviction. Why not direct your vitriol at them? If the Police hadn’t been so PC I have no doubt whatsoever, they would have secured a conviction. NZ is paying the ultimate price for PC gone mad, and a murderer(s) of two little babies is/are, free to walk. Insane.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
It’s a book for goodness sake…So many people have judged it without reading it..That wonderful NZ education system which produces such flawed thinking.
Vote:I support Ian Wishart and hope the book does well in Aussie.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Paul- Wishart is claiming to have asked questions that the police didn’t ask. So why doesn’t he go and tell the police what the answers were. Don’t forget; there is still a double murderer out there.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
DPF says; If he had published this book with the intention to bring justice in this matter or to hand over the guilty killer. Sadly, Ian Wishart has positioned himself as sensationalist, and undermined any previous reputation he had for investigative reporting.
Now the problem here is that until one has read the book one cannot possibly comment.
Vote:Any comment prior to reading all the book is simply sensationalism in itself for its own sake.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I don’t feel a need to read everything that is published to disagree with its sentiments. I have no interest in reading Kings’s ‘story’. As others had pointed out, what can she add now that she had any reason not to say earlier? Will anything she says now lead to charges being laid? The Police felt that they had evidence sufficient to convict the killer; he was found not guilty and we have to accept that.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Macsyna and her whanau are pure and unadulterated scum, and among the worst savages New Zealand has ever produced.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Nookin (968) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
It’s called life experience Penny. You should go and get some. Tilting at windmills has left you somewhat concussed and very angry with the world.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
errr….. try putting your ESP ‘receiver’ on FULL ‘Nookin’ and delving a bit deeper into my ‘life experience’.
You obviously don’t have a blinding clue.
Situation normal……..
(sigh)
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Put it away (2,005) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Penny Not-too-bright – any version that Maxina ( I can’t bring myself to type that ludicrous ghetto spelling) writes that doesn’t name the killer, is sanitised.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
How do you know it doesn’t ‘Put it away ‘?
‘Nookin’s ESP receiver doing the rounds is it?
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Penny
Why do you quote in full every comment to which you are responding?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
MM, well its well established on Kiwiblog that you fail miserably to research facts, get facts, get the right information to make decisions. That’s why so much of what you have to say is so wrong. Which you support in an able manner with you declining to read another opinion.
There is always more to a story or an happening than gets told.
Look at Scott Watson fit up. Peter Ellis and so on. As Wishart says, sometimes it ‘s the questions asked.
Manolo; while that may be true without the searchlight upon them we will never get to the truth. The more discussion the better because sooner or later either the pressure gets to someone or someone’s lies get exposed.
Just today I learned of a house trashing that was solved some 7 years after the event. Because one finger print remained in the database and got matched when that person committed a violence offense.
If one looks at the case of Craig Merryweather, a student who disappeared after crossing the straits, that case was solved a year or more later when Ian Johnson and the Crime Watch team decided, against the advice of the police, to reenact his disappearance. That jogged the mind of a hostel owner who had stowed away a bag that was left in the hostel. He retrieved it and that lead to the police finding the two people who shot Craig and buried his body for about $40 form memory.
So keeping up the publicity is a good thing.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
V2
What have I said that’s so wrong? Can you point to factual errors. Some Kiwibloggers too readily mistake contrary opinions for erroneous opinions. On, and sorry for not joining the Wishart fan club.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Version 1:
Version 2:
Penny Not-too-bright – any version that Maxina ( I can’t bring myself to type that ludicrous ghetto spelling) writes that doesn’t name the killer, is sanitised.
How do you know it doesn’t ‘Put it away ‘?
‘Nookin’s ESP receiver doing the rounds is it?
FFS Penny, get a clue. Your formatting has been called twice tonight on this thread, once on GD tonight, and let’s not worry about yesterday. Now my version says exactly what your version said so none of us understand what your fucking problem is with dropping the formatting we all complain about.
I have told you before how to use tags but here goes again: [i]text[/] and use caret (left arrow right arrow) keys instead of the square braces.
All of us are sick of asking Penny. Do it now, forever, and never ever use your old style again, tonight, tomorrow, the day after until you finally depart KB. Cheers. Not asking again.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Lion Clubs Of New Zealand in co-operation with Resene Paint NZ are collecting up Lsd coins and other coins no longer in circulation.
FFS would one of you great guys in the City of Sails please please pick up the verdi gris covered drachma and pop her into a bucket at any Resene shop.
Almost of no value I know but it would be a giant step forward for those of us left here bereft of her tremendous intellect and resulting vomitus.
Some people actually voted for her, jesus wept
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Bla bla bloody blar.
No one has read the friggin thing yet, for all we know it could be about to expose the disgraceful underbelly of NZ society in a way that can’t be ignored.
It could become one of the most powerful testimonies against abuse and neglect that we have seen so far.
The ‘don’t do as I did’ message has real power if it is genuine and that is the only issue here, is it genuine?
We won’t know if no one reads it.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
reid (7,696) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
All of us are sick of asking Penny. Do it now, forever, and never ever use your old style again, tonight, tomorrow, the day after until you finally depart KB. Cheers. Not asking again.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Who died and made YOU the boss ‘reid’?
Who is the ‘all of us’ to whom you are referring ‘reid’?
Which part of ‘go to hell’ do you fail to understand ‘reid’?
Guess you’re just going to have to keep asking ‘reid’?
or………………….. WHAT?
errr…. think my contribution to robust debate on this THREAD has been far more substantial than yours ‘reid’.
Find your huffy puffy (attempted) threatening crap to be all a bit boring ‘reid’.
PUT UP or SHUT UP.
You going to boycott ‘Kiwiblog’ if I continue posting ‘reid’?
Going to take others with you?
Off you go then.
Bye bye………..
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Jadis
“Sadly, Ian Wishart has positioned himself as sensationalist, and undermined any previous reputation he had for investigative reporting.”
His previous reputation for investigative reporting was undermined years ago – see “Soy Milk makes you gay” Nov 2003; and “Is John Lennon in Hell” February [?] 2008.
Paul Marsden
“If the Police hadn’t been so PC I have no doubt whatsoever, they would have secured a conviction.”
What does that even mean? How did their being “too PC” prevent the police from securing a conviction?
Elaycee
“Must admit that Wishart has taken a step back in my eyes – when he wrote Absolute Power, he opined (along the lines) that readers could judge the veracity of the contents by whether he was served with a defamation suit within a week of the book hitting the stands. Well, he wasn’t served and despite head grinch being notably unimpressed with the book, it wasn’t updated / nothing was retracted / no apologies made. ”
If you really believe this non-sequitur, I suggest you a) read up on NZ defamation law; and b) ask yourself why a Prime Minister would want to help Ian Wishart sell his pap by giving him a platform. Ian loves playing the victim.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
weizguy
I hadn’t seen those pieces; almost tempted to look them up. My favourite Wishartiana would be some of his demented rants on radio – like the US submarines hiding in the southern fiords? Or, who could forget his fearless defence of Irish scumbag Danny Butler?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Weizguy
Vote:Same philosophy applies to the kiwisfirst website. All crap but why bother giving it oxygen
June 29th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
It’s been a long day Reid. This thread is at least two metres longer than it needed to be. Still, she never fails to astound. The idea that she has debated is stunningly delusional. That she thinks that she has contributed is scary.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
mikenmild. @ 2.12 you dismiss Wishart as “a weirdo’
Vote:How do you back that up ?
Or is it just the usual, toss out an insulting label. That it ?
Oh no. you managed to throw in a few purile extras in your effort @ 2.12
Anything about you ? Back it up.
@7.08 “what have I said thats so wrong?’ (cue whining, quellurous voice )
Gosh.
June 29th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Nookin
“Weizguy
Same philosophy applies to the kiwisfirst website. All crap but why bother giving it oxygen”
I see what you’re saying, but I’m torn… I think the best thing for Wishart’s ideas is oxygen, or possibly sunlight. When people see what he publishes, they’re far less likely to see him as any sort of “Titan of Journalism.”
I took some pleasure at making my way down to my local Borders, picking up Investigate, laughing my way through the John Lennon article, and then placing the magazine back on the shelf. I wouldn’t dream of paying for the privilege.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
bereal
Sorry if I upset you by attacking Saint Ian, but he’s a conspiracy freak. He has a well-established track record of promoting absurd theories. To be fair, I doubt if he believes much of it himself, but it will sell to the likes of Penny.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Nookin (971) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
It’s been a long day Reid. This thread is at least two metres longer than it needed to be. Still, she never fails to astound. The idea that she has debated is stunningly delusional. That she thinks that she has contributed is scary.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Still got your head firmly implanted in your backside ‘Nookin’?
Going to be one of those who ‘boycotts’ Kiwiblog if I am not removed?
(One of ‘reid’s mates?)
I live in hope……………..
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Penny what I’m going to do is install Firefox and RIP you. You’ve made me change my preferred browser, and why?
Because you’re a fucking mental selfish bitch who feels able to just walk into a blog do whatever the fuck she likes no matter the inconvenience to other bloggers and just fuck you all.
You know what this is a symptom of Penny? Borderline Personality Disorder.
In case you think it’s just me, you should have noticed tonight and yesterday that I’m not the only one who has a problem with your formatting. Read today’s threads you mental fuckhead. Go on. Read them. See what they say about you.
As I’ve repeatedly said you mental fuckhead, it’s not what you say, it’s the formatting so whether or not you think you debate it, is not the fucking point is it, you mental fuckhead.
So for the first time ever Penny, I’m going to RIP you. I didn’t even do that for phil.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
weizguy says: “a) read up on NZ defamation law; and b) ask yourself why a Prime Minister would want to help Ian Wishart sell his pap by giving him a platform.”
Really? Didn’t seem to stop Muldoon. Didn’t seem to stop Lange either. But of course, Clark was only sued for defamation rather then instigating the proceedings. Have you ever considered that maybe Wishart was right in what he said?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
I don’t think we can entirely rule out the possibility that Wishart’s book on Clark contained some truth. The point is, given his track record, most people would be reluctant to accept any of his writings at face value as he is nearly always peddling an agenda and twisting information to suit his pre-determined conclusions.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
The point is, given his track record, most people would be reluctant to accept any of his writings at face value as he is nearly always peddling an agenda and twisting information to suit his pre-determined conclusions.
Not at all like Nicky Hagar, is it, mm.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Nicky Hager is a bit less fuit-loopy, yes. He has written some good well-researched stuff (Secret Power), but also stuff with which one might take serious issue.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Penny. If you ever manage to consider issues unclouded by your own monumental self-interest you will note that I have never once suggested that you be banned.
You do not live in hope, Penny. You live in a turmoil of festering egocentricity. You also seem to have an anal-fixation. Is that your haemorroids again?
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
He has written some good well-researched stuff (Secret Power), but also stuff with which one might take serious issue.
He always peddles an agenda, mm, which is: every secret is by definition, sinister. Not to mention his warped leftist mindset, which Wishart doesn’t have quite so much of, in the sense of being warped.
I was being sarcastic, BTW. I think Hagar is a complete mental. His Hollow Man breathless tale was published unlike this not so to tell a human story but for political reasons, to change politics, which it did. And his premises were flawed and his conclusions far fetched but since it suited Hulun at the time she threw her resources at it left, right and centre.
Shame Wishart did the same exposure for Secret Power but the moment was passed and no need, really, for she was never coming back, to do for that what she did with Hollow Men.
But no doubt, mm, you think Wishart’s premises were flawed and his conclusions far fetched, which just illustrated my point, most people believe what they want to believe (i.e. what makes them feel good or usually, what doesn’t make them feel bad), in order to reduce their cognitive dissonance. Facts quite often don’t come into it, for you feel about Hagar as I do about Wishart and I personally find some of Wishart’s arguments quite compelling sometimes, just as I’m sure you also do, with Hagar’s. However that doesn’t mean either of us are right, or wrong. Isn’t that annoying…
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
reid
I can go along with that. I can’t claim that everything Wishart writes is fundamentally flawed – he was largely correct about the Winebox, for example. But some of his stuff goes way beyond absurd. I agree Hager writes the further an agenda, that wouldn’t lead me to reject all his stuff automatically.
I’d prefer for authors to declare their biases up front, but recognition of one’s own biases is a bit abnormal. While it’s good to challenge ideas, and have one’s own ideas challenged in turn, we do tend to seek information that confirms our existing opinions. That’s part of the reason I enjoy a forum like Kiwiblog.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
cuckoo
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Elaycee
“Really? Didn’t seem to stop Muldoon. Didn’t seem to stop Lange either. But of course, Clark was only sued for defamation rather then instigating the proceedings. ”
I think you’ll find that Lange (and any defamation cases he took) has a lot to do with why Wishart’s argument doesn’t hold.
“Have you ever considered that maybe Wishart was right in what he said?”
If you mean right in the sense of the above argument, then no. Most importantly, because the lack of a defamation action is no evidence of truth. It’s a non-sequitur which is employed all too often.
If you mean in the sense of the conclusions he came to in “Absolute Power”, I can only speak for the parts of the book I have skim read. From that taste, I got the sense that he was a man with a grudge who was working very hard to force the facts to fit his agenda. What’s worse, is that he made no attempt to disguise the fact. In summary, there were certainly decisions taken by the previous labour government which which I disagreed, but I don’t agree with Wishart’s conclusion that this made Helen Clark corrupt.
So no – I don’t think Wishart is “right in what he said”
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
eid (7,699) Says:
June 29th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Penny what I’m going to do is install Firefox and RIP you. You’ve made me change my preferred browser, and why?
Because you’re a fucking mental selfish bitch who feels able to just walk into a blog do whatever the fuck she likes no matter the inconvenience to other bloggers and just fuck you all.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Diddums ‘reid’.
Calm yourself for goodness sake.
If anyone sounds ‘f***ing mental’ – it’s YOU.
Look at what you’ve written!
(You’ll probably be one of the few……………..
Settle petal………..
I’ll still read your posts ‘reid’ – proves I must be effective if I get such a rabid response from Kiwibloggers like you?
Kind regards dear – remember tomorrow is another day…………
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
June 29th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
“I get such a rabid response from Kiwibloggers”
Vote:easy there cujo
June 30th, 2011 at 3:21 am
Penny – coming from someone who has written nothing abusive to or about you… Please change the layout of your posts. They make the thread really hard to read.
May I suggest that you only quote the text to which you are responding, and then respond directly afterwards?
There’s also no need for a signoff, we can see who you are by your name above the comment, and your name links to your website.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 7:31 am
Weizguy
Vote:Been there, done that. Reason, courtesy, simple requests for consideration –all fall on deaf ears. Reid also started very politely – stoutly defending Penny’s right to express herself but questioned the manner in which she does so. Please follow the underlying them. Penny is not here to debate. She is here for self promotion. She even quotes extensively from Kiwiblog on her own site. Although she talks of debate and contribution she is simply an agent provocateur for her own self-centred agenda. The link to her own site is, to her, more important than anything else. Why else would she so stubbornly refuse to conform to the standards that others posting here find so much more user-friendly?
June 30th, 2011 at 7:56 am
Geez, I don’t know which is worse; wanting to ban a book that no one has read or standing behind a book no one has read.
To be honest given the actions of the tight 12, I… just… don’t… care… anymore. And hers’s a thought: why didn’t she say all these things in her initial statement?
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 8:12 am
Who died and made YOU the boss ‘reid’?
Who is the ‘all of us’ to whom you are referring ‘reid’?
Penny; It’s called etiquette. Are you familiar with the term? Just as it is considered poor etiquette to talk with your mouth full or slurp your tea, there are certain standards expected in post presentation. Guys like reid and V2 are examples good posting etiquette.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 8:15 am
Hum… I’ll defend to the death the right of booksellers to decline to stock books for whatever reasons they choose — even if I think those reasons are self-serving and fatuous. (Still, nice to know Paper Plus and The Warehouse are crowdsourcing their buying to social media. How hip!)
But I think a little corporate hypocrisy should be pointed out. Today, you can walk into any PP or Warehouse store and walk out with an armful of so-called “true crime” non-fiction, self-serving memoirs by sociopathic criminals (who will be cashing royalty cheques) and container loads of DVDs and novels with astoundingly graphic depictions of criminal behaviour and violent abuse of women and children.
I don’t know if there’s much principle on display here, but I suggest folks who are feeling rather pleased with themselves right about now should remember they’re not the only people who can throw together a Facebook boycott.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 8:29 am
“the end of freedom of speech” my arse. Just like that crazy woman has the right to produce a book, everyone also has the freedom not to have anything to do with it and retailers have the freedom to stock or not stock it.
It is encouraging to see that at least some retailers are taking a stand on the promotion of such misery
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 8:56 am
weizguy: “I think you’ll find that Lange (and any defamation cases he took) has a lot to do with why Wishart’s argument doesn’t hold.”
PMs have sued in the past for defamation (IIRC, Lange also lost a defamation case against a journalist who called him “lazy”). Anyway, if Clark didn’t like what was said in Absolute Power, she had the ability to do the same via the Courts but chose not to do so. So my suggestion to you that Wishart may have been right (in what he wrote), still stands. He wrote it / it hasn’t been challenged in the Courts despite an opportunity (and precedent).
I note you also said: “I can only speak for the parts of the book I have skim read. From that taste, I got the sense that he was a man with a grudge…” So based on a skim read, you have come to the conclusion that the content may not be accurate.
Wishart may well have been disgruntled when he wrote Absolute Power, (former Labour stalwart etc) but if someone wrote a similar account about you, would you roll over and allow it to remain extant without challenge? No – of course not.
Unless it contained sufficient material that was considered best left ‘unstirred and unchallenged.’
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Elaycee
I think you miss weizguy’s point. Not suing for defamation does not equate to agreeing with a book’s contents. Ignoring unfavourable comment is something most politicians get used to.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 11:05 am
It is encouraging to see that at least some retailers are taking a stand on the promotion of such misery
So, Barry, you’ll be boycotting The Warehouse until they withdraw from sale all DVDs of the ‘Underbelly’ series?
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Publicwatchdog (755) says:
“If Ian Wishart’s book ‘Breaking the Silence’, which he has taken the time to research and write, helps to reopen the Police inquiry into the killing of the Kahui baby boys, and results in a conviction, following LAWFUL DUE PROCESS – then that will surely be the outcome most people want?”
Due to the considerable interest in this case Penny, a fair trial, being judged by your peers, would not be possible in any court in New Zealand.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Fair comment, Craig.
Yes, there does seem to be a whiff of hypocrisy about the decision to boycott the book. Do the bookstores actually know why they’re boycotting the book?
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 11:54 am
It’s intellectually dishonest to ban this book from sale, that is censorship at it’s worse in a democratic society. If all books containing contentious material were banned, bookshops would be empty. If the same criteria was applied the Bible would have to be banned.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Wishart was free to write and publish this book.
Vote:The retailers are free to stock it or not.
Consumers are free to purchase the book or not, and can still do so.
We’re all free to comment on the wisdom of writing and selling the book.
June 30th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Yes, Rightnow, retailers are free to to stock it or not, but why have some refused to stock it? Do they even know?
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Ross – PaperPlus advised “Paper Plus chief executive Rob Smith said the “prevailing opinion” was that “our stores do not feel comfortable selling this book and our customers do not want to buy it”.
Kevin H – no one is banning the book.
Vote:The book is available from Investigate website – in fact you can “Beat the Ban” by ordering it there
June 30th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
“Yes, Rightnow, retailers are free to to stock it or not, but why have some refused to stock it? ”
Brand.
What is brand? Mainly it is the effort that you put in to people liking your store/business rather than disliking it.
Brand can’t be summed up neatly, but I am guessing that the individual retailers have decided that their customers will like them less (rather than more) if they stock the book.
At the end of the day, not to many businesses want to be associated with the relatively recent death of two twin babies.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
And FFS – This book is not being “banned”. You can buy it, but you might not be able to buy it from the place you normally buy your books.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I guess the difference between “choosing not to stock” and ‘banning” is having to comply with a law of some sort. A retailer may feel that by stocking a certain item, its reputation could be sullied.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
KevinH, it is NOT “intellectually dishonest to ban this book from sale”, nor is it “censorship at it’s worse in a democratic society.” Firstly, as MANY other people have pointed out, the book is not “banned”. I pointed this out last night. Some book stores have chosen not to stock it, as they presumably choose not to stock many other books. Surely this is their right? Or are you saying that book stores be COMPELLED to stock certain books? If a Christian music store, for example, chooses not to stock albums by bands glorifying Satan worship, do you have a problem with that?
There will be plenty of other retailers selling the book, I am sure.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Why not do a private prosecution?
When Mallard biffed Tau it was not Tau that brought the prosecution against Mallard but a private individual.
In a private prosecution it’s not ‘reasonable doubt’ but the ‘balance of probabilities that will secure a conviction.
Would be good if a Kiwiblog reader/lawyer could look into this? I’m sure there are many readers of this blog (and from many other sources) that would be happy to chip in with expenses for a private prosecution of Ms. King?
I would have thought that as Kahui was found ‘not guilty’ (in law) then it has to be someone ‘other.’ I don’t think it would take a jury to long to come to a ‘reasonable doubt’ conclusion as to wether the ‘other’ person is guilty or not?
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
“In a private prosecution it’s not ‘reasonable doubt’ but the ‘balance of probabilities that will secure a conviction.”
That is not the case. I have also heard the police made a deal with Kind offering her immunity from prosecution in return for testifying. I cannot say for sure if this is true but am pretty sure this is the case from memory.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
In any criminal case the proff is beyond reasoable doubt. In case you are thinking about the OJ case, that was a civil claim for damages.
Vote:If the police made a deal with King then they will be looking at the fine print after the hearing today.
June 30th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Good point Nookin. The deal should have been immunity provided she was not the or a principal offender.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I wonder what the Government is putting in our water?? Last week we have every man and his dog condemning Alasdair Thompson for publicly stating a well known fact, and now this week, the same lot are up in arms over a book that no one has yet read? How very strange…
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Paul
Vote:Bias, bigotry and prejudice are equal opportunity attitudes, and random as well. That’s what makes life so interesting.
June 30th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Must be the fluoride
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
You can’t trust what truth will be in this book!!
Vote:I am the partner of one of the fathers to one of her children and she has never as far as we are concerend been a good mother, she may have played a part in killing those poor twins but through her track record they should have been taken from her at birth.
My partner was with this evil woman for 4 and a half years and went through hell,( to the one who commented above about the father who held her at gun point) only half that story was told in the news and he is a great father! where would this child be had she been left with her mother.
Yes she should be sterilised and if any mother can knowingly let the ones responsibile for killing her children go free then what does that say about the type of person she is.
She should be held responsible and get no praise or proceeds from this book…
June 30th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
This not a boycott, it is a ‘partial’ voluntary ban. It has been banned from certain stores, suggesting “our customers don’t want to read it” is utter bullshit, there are many people that would purchase it through these stores if given the chance.
While it is not technically an official ban, it reveals the pathetic, ignorant state of many NZers rational thinking abilities. These “banners” could just as likely be nut case fundamentalists from the States.
Face book is a bloody cancer on society when it substitutes reality like this, it is a breeding ground for immature narcissistic adults that offer nothing of worth to our society.
If you don’t like a book that you have never read then don’t friggin well buy it, that is called a boycott, but the book not being on the shelves (regardless of semantics) is effectively as citizen initiated ban.
Friggin scary if you ask me.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Elaycee
“I note you also said: “I can only speak for the parts of the book I have skim read. From that taste, I got the sense that he was a man with a grudge…” So based on a skim read, you have come to the conclusion that the content may not be accurate. ”
This one first – I was not specifically challenging the accuracy of the content, but rather Wishart’s conclusions about what that material meant. However, I think I would be foolish to accept anything that Wishart writes at face value, simply because he chooses to publish articles such as the ones I mentioned earlier in the thread. Besides, I tend to think you can pull together a reasonable picture of a book by skim reading… particularly when you come across such gems as: “Like all good serial killers, H2 seldom leaves her paw prints at the scene of a crime”. Solid Journalism – not the slightest hint of bias at all.
“Wishart may well have been disgruntled when he wrote Absolute Power, (former Labour stalwart etc) but if someone wrote a similar account about you, would you roll over and allow it to remain extant without challenge? No – of course not.
“Unless it contained sufficient material that was considered best left ‘unstirred and unchallenged.’”
Or if I was a politician who had an understanding of the way that the defence of Qualified Privilege had developed in New Zealand; Knew that a defence of Honest Opinion excused all manner of sins; was aware of the likelihood of a politician winning a defamation suit in NZ (low); and had any political nous – seeing that giving a platform to someone like Wishart was a terrible tactical move – I would have done what Helen Clark did: Ignore it.
What was the outcome from that again? Oh right, Wishart’s conspiracy theories remained where they belonged, in the bookcases of the lunatic fringe.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Shunda
Retailers a surely free to decide what to stock. It seems to me that they are simply responding to widespread revulsion. By your logic, booksellers are ‘banning’ books every time they decide a publication would annoy or revolt the customers whose choices keep them in business.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
It is mob rule then mikenmild, what you call “widespread revulsion” I would call widespread reactionary irrationality.
Shout them down loud enough and you get your way, bloody marvellous.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Nah, it is genuine revulsion. There are two objectionable components for me. The subject: I don’t want to read her ‘story’, pathetic as I’m sure it is. The author: fruit loop and exploiter. I see today that having seized his publicity chance to coincide with the inquest the publication date has been ‘put off’ to give him another crack at publicity.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
weizguy – “What was the outcome from that again? Oh right, Wishart’s conspiracy theories remained where they belonged, in the bookcases of the lunatic fringe.”
Ha ha – nice try, but no cigar. If Wishart wrote something defamatory, he would have been sued by Clark. Don’t dream anything different – Clark was a total control freak and if there was the slimmest opportunity for her to bury Wishart, she would have.
IMO, the reason that Clark didn’t sue was that there were things in the book that she didn’t want to be the subject of any discussion or any test in Court. If the veracity of the book was questioned via a defamation suit, Wishart would have had a field day.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
It is not mob rule. It is creating pressure to change the status quo, it is not irrational. It happens every day, even between individuals over the simplest decisions like what to have for dinner. When business does it they call it lobbying. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
According to the Leighton Smith show, when the green movement marched to stop mining it was a “rent a mob”. When 85%+ opposed the anti-smacking law it was democracy being denied. Sounds like it depends whether the decision fits with your view of the world as to whether it’s democracy or mob rule. Nobody gets to have it their own way all the time. Unless of course you are a dictator with a really big army. Though Gaddafi might tell you that isn’t always enough. Actually, he probably shares the same viewpoint about social media.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Kaya, Facebook is all about bullying, don’t for a second think it isn’t.
Your examples are completely irrelevant to this case, your examples are primarily about laws that affect all of us, laws we have a right to march against.
The reaction to this book is about stomping out information, and information that has not yet been rightly judged.
If Hitler can be represented in the book store then so can this woman’s story.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Shunda – Some people call lobbying by powerful, wealthy and well connected groups with agendas of their own bullying. Who gets to make the call? My examples are completely relevant. Organised groups pressuring others to change some present or proposed behaviour. What’s the difference?
I’m saying it’s all about perspective and what you believe is right. Like it or not, by one of the greatest margins ever seen on Facebook in NZ, people are opposing this book. I think (probably like you) that there is an element of lynch mob mentality here and that is a scary thing. That’s the way it is.
The main thing to remember here is that Wishart’s book is NOT being banned. Joe Public are excercising their democratic right to protest and It is up to the individual stores whether or not to stock it. No one is threatening to blow them up if they do. The shops involved are making a commercial decision. In reality, people contacting the stores and telling them they disapprove of them stocking the book are saving the stores money. Up until now they would have to pay market research companies to find out what the public think!!
What we need to realise is that the days of control of what the masses see, hear or read, (by a relatively small group of people) are over. Information cannot be as easily manipulated as it once.
Social media is democracy without makeup and sometimes it is ugly. So what would you do, ban Facebook et al? Ben Elton wrote a book called “Blind Faith” which is a satirical and dark look at the subject. Scary shit but this is the future.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
I gather that something like 30,000 people “like”the boycott. I suspect most of them haven’t the foggiest idea why they signed. Some probably did so to make up the numbers.
My immediate reaction is not to buy the book and I have taken a few days to think it through. I probably still won’t. First, I do not think Macsyna is going to tell Wishart anything she does not want him to know. She wants a sanitised self-portrait. Inevitably she will try to depict herself in better light. A good author should see thru that. Will Wishart? I have not read much Wishart work. I read his AA Thomas book and thought he was struggling with some of his inferences and the suggestion that the cop did it is more PennyBrightish than rational thinking. I do not think Wishart is the man. But, he is making the effort and that is his right. For myself, I am sceptical that he will do the job justice. Others will disagree.
Next, there is still unfinished business. These kids need justice. I am at the stage that I do not believe anyone involved in this sorry saga and I do not like the idea of a controlled release of information. They need to be thrown into a bear pit. Maybe its the wrong analogy but it’s a bit like a sportsman getting an award before retiring. This game is still on. The book can come later.
I think this coroner is going to let fly. He did not piss around with Kahui and he knows that the public are sick to the back teeth of pussy-footing around the issue. Wishart should put his book on the back shelves until the coroner has made his decision. Then, if the police charge her with failing to provide the necessities of life, he can donate a consignment to me for fire fuel. Judging by the evidence today, she should be worried about other charges.
Paper Plus and Warehouse have reacted a bit rashly. It’s their call but given the repercussions I hope they have thought it through.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
But, But But! there will be a way in. I.e for example the police’ may have’ given her immunity against a charge of murder for her testifying but ‘no’t for a charge of manslaughter? This is why we need a reading lawyer to advise.
Tookinator (54) Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Why not do a private prosecution?
When Mallard biffed Tau it was not Tau that brought the prosecution against Mallard but a private individual.
In a private prosecution it’s not ‘reasonable doubt’ but the ‘balance of probabilities that will secure a conviction.
Would be good if a Kiwiblog reader/lawyer could look into this? I’m sure there are many readers of this blog (and from many other sources) that would be happy to chip in with expenses for a private prosecution of Ms. King?
I would have thought that as Kahui was found ‘not guilty’ (in law) then it has to be someone ‘other.’ I don’t think it would take a jury to long to come to a ‘reasonable doubt’ conclusion as to wether the ‘other’ person is guilty or not?
Chuck Bird (1,649) Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
“In a private prosecution it’s not ‘reasonable doubt’ but the ‘balance of probabilities that will secure a conviction.”
That is not the case. I have also heard the police made a deal with Kind offering her immunity from prosecution in return for testifying. I cannot say for sure if this is true but am pretty sure this is the case from memory.
Nookin (983) Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
In any criminal case the proff is beyond reasoable doubt. In case you are thinking about the OJ case, that was a civil claim for damages.
If the police made a deal with King then they will be looking at the fine print after the hearing today.
Chuck Bird (1,649) Says:
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Good point Nookin. The deal should have been immunity provided she was not the or a principal offender.
June 30th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Tookinator, if there was a deal struck between Miss King and the Solicitor-General (the Police cannot give immunity, the SG is the one that does that) then it was most likely from prosecution for any role that she may have played in the deaths, rather than for a specific charge.
If the offer was charge specific then any lawyer who recommended she accept it would have to be nuts, for precisely the possibility that you raise.
Any private prosecution is to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. It is not the type of prosecutor that has this burden of proof, but they type of case (civil or criminal).
Chris Kahui was found not guilty. That does not mean innocent. Nobody who is acquitted in NZ can ever claim to have been found to be innocent. Basically the Police can quite legitimately say every person who is acquitted is in fact culpable, but that they Police could not prove it to the required standard to obtain a conviction. Anyway, the fact that Kahui was acquitted does not mean that it is definitely someone else. It could have been him, but the evidence wasn’t there to support a conviction. However, the speed of the acquittal (about 7 minutes, I am told) after a hugely long case is astonishing and is very suggestive that he was found innocent by the jury. But in law nobody is innocent, they are either guilty or haven’t been proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. not guilty).
EDIT: “When Mallard biffed Tau it was not Tau that brought the prosecution against Mallard but a private individual.”
I thought it was a police prosecution? Are you sure this does not mix up the role of the person who made the complaint and the role of the prosecutor? They are not the same thing.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 3:21 am
Elaycee
“Ha ha – nice try, but no cigar. If Wishart wrote something defamatory, he would have been sued by Clark. Don’t dream anything different – Clark was a total control freak and if there was the slimmest opportunity for her to bury Wishart, she would have.”
Why? Because you said so? Helen Clark was defamed every single day of her life while Prime Minister – still is. She chose not to sue all those people either. She didn’t sue Whaleoil for his photoshopping, and didn’t sue any of the people who decided that they felt qualified to pass judgement on her personal life. Seems to me she has a track record of NOT suing people for defamation. Seems the facts support my version, not yours.
“IMO, the reason that Clark didn’t sue was that there were things in the book that she didn’t want to be the subject of any discussion or any test in Court. If the veracity of the book was questioned via a defamation suit, Wishart would have had a field day.”
Did you miss the bit where I talked about tactical decisions? Suing Wishart would merely allow him to claim credibility, and claim the victim role. It would have been playing into his hands. Add that to the fact that a successful suit was next to impossible (knowing the laws on defamation as she would) why would she bother. The fact that you would have loved to see Wishart repeat his pap in a highly publicised civil action is irrelevant here.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 3:27 am
F E Smith
“Chris Kahui was found not guilty. That does not mean innocent. Nobody who is acquitted in NZ can ever claim to have been found to be innocent.”
Why do people keep repeating this rubbish. We have a thing in NZ called “the presumption of innocence”. If you are found not guilty, you are (in the eyes of the law) innocent. Simple. There’s no need for the introduction of a “not proven/innocent” distinction.
Think through the implications of what you are saying. If what you are saying was true, anyone would cease being “innocent” as soon as they were accused of any crime. What’s more, they could never be able to shed that lack of innocence (sorry, it’s your suggestion that leads to the awkward construction). While this may be the case in the court of public opinion, it’s not in law.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:06 am
wow a lot of tripe written about a simple topic
Vote:Ian Wishart and Macsyna have a right to put this book out and bookstores and people have a right not to purchase it
the end
July 1st, 2011 at 8:31 am
Nope. Private prosecution. Graham McCready. But definitely still beyond reasonable doubt.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 11:00 am
So… does this mean that King can’t be prosecuted (even if it turns out that she did do it) because she has immunity because of a deal she did with the police/SG?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 11:21 am
Graeme, seriously? Gee, that was keen!
Weizguy,
It is a presumption, not a declaration. A starting point that puts the burden on the accuser. It is a legal fiction designed to provide a fair starting point for a trial. No law suggests it means actual innocence. And nobody said anything about the not guilty/innocent verdicts (although I would support such a distinction).
In truth, I was just paraphrasing Rogers v Television New Zealand [2007] NZSC 91:
Justice Blanchard at [47]: “Someone who has been acquitted at a criminal trial – against whom the Crown case was not proved to the requisite high standard – cannot expect to be thereby freed from public discussion of the events which led to the trial and at the trial itself, though they may of course have the benefit of the law of defamation if anyone asserts that they were in fact guilty of the crime of which they have been acquitted.”
or more strongly with Justice Tipping at [66]: “An acquittal is not, however, a declaration of innocence. It means no more than that the case against the accused has not been proved. An acquittal does not bar allegations that the person concerned is actually guilty. Anyone making such an allegation will of course be liable to pay damages in defamation unless they can prove the truth of what they allege.”
If you have a problem with it, you can write to Justice Tipping c/- the Supreme Court, DX SX11224
Wellington
EDIT: Tookinator, only if she has a deal with the SG. And there is usually fine print in the document but I am not sure what it would be in her case, as she must have been a suspect. But probably not.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 11:59 am
@weizguy –
Clark was a total control freak – even you would have to acknowledge that. As such, she would’ve relished the opportunity to bury Wishart – remember Wishart worked for the Labour Party on the 7th floor of the Beehive and based on some of the material Wishart has since printed, it would appear that they parted company in less than ideal circumstances. Indeed, when Wishart exposed some ‘less than desirable’ Labour activities, the dirt hit the fan. Clark even called him a ‘creep’ (apparently Wishart was pleased that, at least he wasn’t called a ‘little creep’ – the term Clark reserved for TV3′s John Campbell).
As I’ve suggested before, perhaps Clark didn’t take action because of the presence of sensitive (to her / to her husband / to others in her circle / to the Labour Party) information in the book – info that would have been discussed in full had a defamation case gone to Court. Had you read the book rather than scan a few pages, maybe you’d understand how this info would’ve been a source of embarrassment to dear leader.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Ian Wishart is advocating for “freedom of speech” against bookseller decisions not to stock the book. I wonder how much he has exercised this in the writing of it.
Criminal cases are meant to be dealt with in the court room where there are plenty of rules and qualified people. They are not meant to be dealt with in the public arena through books and such like where the facts of the case pretty quickly get muddied and obfuscated. One has to ask what the motivation for publishing this book is, if it is not for money. Does Macsyna want to clear her name? Does Wishart want to expand his reputation for edgy journalism?
Only time will tell.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 12:14 pm
By indulging this book we risk encouraging defendants in crime to withhold their stories from the police and prosecutors with the aim to supply them to the attentive ear of a willing journalist after the court case is over, thus undermining the justice system.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 12:18 pm
@Kent Parker says: “Criminal Cases ….[are] …not meant to be dealt with in the public arena through books and such like where the facts of the case pretty quickly get muddied and obfuscated…”
Does the same logic apply to Karam’s book(s) about David Bain? Or the book about the Crewe murders / Peter Ellis / The Marlborough Sounds murders / Aramoana and so on?
Are you suggesting that these other authors shouldn’t have written about these cases?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 12:44 pm
I am saying that we have pretty strict rules for how evidence is handled in a court case but our rules for dealing with that evidence when bandied about in the public media are pretty limp. If defendants learn that they can get immense public sympathy for their cause if they publish a well crafted book about it which eventually leads to an acquittal, then we have a very different criminal system to that which I believe is intended. Is this the kind of system that we want to move towards?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:37 pm
May be going slightly off topic here but a question for the lawyers out there on the law of double jeopardy. My understanding is that you can’t be tried for the same crime twice?
So what would happen for example if Scott Watson who has been jailed for life for the murder of 2 people (bodies never found) What if he served his sentence and they then turned up alive? Would he be then ok to murder them as (a) he has already seved the time for it and can’t be tried for it again and (b) Officially the can’t be murdered a second time so who would he be charged with murdering? Is there a precedent any where else in the world?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Kent, I count two instances where books written about a case have eventually led to the subject’s release from prison: A A Thomas and David Bain. Given the numbers of defendants that go through the Court system each year, I think that is a pretty small success rate, don’t you?
Justice is supposed to be open. Our Courts are open. The evidence can be discussed. There is nothing wrong with that, even though there are times when I have wished the journalists would do the discussion after the case has ended, not immediately after the arrests. That said, the biggest offenders in that regard are the police, who are happy to use the media to get their side of events out even as the criminal process is just beginning.
My point being, there is nothing wrong with a book being written about a case. When it comes to a book deal or the chance of spending years in prison, I suggest that most defendants will try to avoid prison rather than wait for the book deal. But if they don’t want to, then that is their right also.
“By indulging this book we risk encouraging defendants in crime to withhold their stories from the police and prosecutors with the aim to supply them to the attentive ear of a willing journalist after the court case is over, thus undermining the justice system.”
I generally encourage my clients to withhold their stories from the police anyway. Why should the accused assist the police in their own prosecution?
The trial is over. The verdict has been given. If Miss King wants to attempt to place the blame elsewhere, that is her right.
EDIT: Tookinator, yes, you can be tried twice for the same crime, but only if you have previously been acquitted and there is new evidence.
Your question re Watson killing the Smart and Hope if they turn up alive is a good one, and I am pretty sure the answer is yes he could, under the rule of autrefois convict. That is off the top of my head, though, so I will have to double check!
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:44 pm
F E Smith
“In truth, I was just paraphrasing Rogers v Television New Zealand [2007] NZSC 91:”
Which brings us to a philosophical question of the definition of “innocence”. For me, it’s binary Guilty/Innocent.
From my old favourite: Tipping
“An acquittal is not, however, a declaration of innocence. It means no more than that the case against the accused has not been proved. An acquittal does not bar allegations that the person concerned is actually guilty.”
Which for me is a different question – I did not mean (and I apologise if I was unclear) to claim that a not guilty verdict was a “declaration” of innocence – it’s not the way our system works.
“And nobody said anything about the not guilty/innocent verdicts (although I would support such a distinction).”
Just pre-empting – it’s normally a favourite.
“If you have a problem with it, you can write to Justice Tipping c/- the Supreme Court, DX SX11224
Wellington”
You looked up the address? I bet that looked clever when you typed it.
“Clark was a total control freak – even you would have to acknowledge that.”
I wouldn’t use your terms. She certainly took a different approach to our current PM.
Again, I ask, if Helen Clark is such a control freak, and she wants to shut down criticism, wouldn’t there be more evidence of her suing for defamation? Or are you suggesting that Wishart is the only person she hates enough?
Clark even called him a ‘creep’
If it walks like a duck… etc
“Had you read the book rather than scan a few pages, maybe you’d understand how this info would’ve been a source of embarrassment to dear leader.”
I said I skim read it, not scanned a few pages. I found plenty in there to understand why it might be embarrassing, if true. But again, we’re dealing with Wishart.
I don’t doubt that Helen Clark would have hated sitting in a court room listening to Wishart spew bile about her. I also don’t doubt that there was far more to her decision than the desire to avoid “embarrassment”.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Hmmmmmm… interesting notes on here – thanks to all the intellectuals for the incredulous opinions of life & death !!
Question (probably for Penny and co…) where can I get a copy of this book? I am too tired to continue reading the nonsense of some reviews and would prefer to make my own judgement.
And NO! I am not an avid supporter of what has happened or by whom may have committed such a heinous crime however for my own benefit I am intrigued at why such a book has created such a spur in such a beautiful country. Yes what has happened is that awful in which publications shouldn’t permit profiteering – but did I not see earlier that the ‘publicly accused’ is not profiting from such? I note publicly accused as from my understanding, she has yet to be charged by any judicial system which probably underpins many beliefs?
Generally, to all those who believe in the media mayhem that followed with this heartbreaking story, look at the bigger picture. It’s not about money or believing in someone (who may be guilty) and parting sympathy for them; it’s about uncovering the truth and knowing how to separate lies and deceit from it.
In the last few decades, the media’s biasness from all shapes and forms has been at the center of erratic behaviours of the public; they merely enlighten readers / viewers and paint a one-sided picture without any thought of repercussions. Why? It sells and you as the public mop up these terrible stories and continue to buy into their ridiculous coverage! For the last few years, the public have taken it upon themselves to fuel more anger and hate in the world instead of looking for ways to FIX the problems.
How about putting more effort into some activities that will actually help? No no no that seems too hard basket doesn’t it? We’d rather sit in a room and create a facebook page and threatened people we’ve never met (and probably won’t). We’ll fire up online and lie to those followers to make them come back for more. And when push comes to shove, we’ll cower away and return back to our miserable reality. Ironic.
I personally have no idea what happened and am deeply saddened by the events but I’d prefer to make my own opinions opposed to following a mob that are only half enlightened.
Vote: