The Titford case

April 5th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

John Ansell writes:

There has been a major breakthrough in the case. And sadly (but typically) every newspaper, TV channel and radio station in this country, in accord with the state’s wishes, is covering it up.

Before you read the affidavit below, bear in mind that the woman writing it, Sheryll Titford, along with her husband, Allan’s brother Brian, doesn’t like Allan. She has always supported her former sister-in-law, Susan Titford (Cochrane).

(And before you conclude that Allan must be guilty if his brother and sister-in-law don’t like him, wait till you hear what Sue’s brother Dennis Cochrane has to say about the dishonesty of his sister Sue — but that’s the subject of another post.)

This is what makes Sheryll Titford’s voluntary affidavit so remarkable. Despite being a friend of Sue’s, Sheryll has been moved by her conscience to do the right thing by Allan.

Sheryll’s affidavit reveals that Sue told her that her (Sue’s) father, Graham Cochrane, confessed on his deathbed to burning down Sue and Allan’s family home at Maunganui Bluff.

I don’t know enough about the case to draw conclusions myself. But if there is an affidavit that contradicts evidence given in court, then the authorities should investigate it, in case there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Tags:

54 Responses to “The Titford case”

  1. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    But if there is an affidavit that contradicts evidence given in court, then the authorities should investigate it, in case there has been a miscarriage of justice.

    Or, alternatively, he could file an appeal in the Court of Appeal on the grounds that relevant evidence was kept from the defence at trial. Oh, what’s that? He’s having trouble getting legal aid? Well, that’s what happens to CRIMINALS who have NO RIGHT to leech off the taxpayer … so National fixed that problem with its reforms of the system. Just a bugger when those impact on one of your guys, right?

    Furthermore, saying that “the authorities should investigate” fails to recognise the MASSIVE CONSPIRACY surrounding Titford’s conviction, which was ENGINEERED by THE STATE to silence his criticisms. It goes RIGHT TO THE TOP, you know!

    [DPF: As I understand it, if new evidence comes to light, the prosecuting authorities should consider it, regardless of whether the defence appeals.]

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    That wasn’t a particularly professorial observation AG. Were there weevils in the muesli this morning?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    That wasn’t a particularly professorial observation AG. Were there weevils in the muesli this morning?

    It’s Saturday. I’m not on the clock. Coffee also hadn’t kicked in fully.

    Plus, I treat proclaimations from John Ansell about Alan Titford with the same level of scepticism as I treat claims about David Bain by Joe Karam. Maybe they are true … but some salt usually is needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    I entirely agree with you on the credibility of crusaders whose mission becomes conflated with some form of ideological obsession.

    I started reading the article but was put off by its tabloid presentation and by the frequent reference to statements as “affidavits”.

    By way of edification, the term “affidavit” applies to a written statement that is sworn or affirmed for the purposes of court or other judicial or quasi judicial proceedings and carries with it the sanction of a prosecution for perjury. References to “affidavit” in the article suggests that these statements should be afforded some basis for credibility or persuasiveness that they do not necessarily deserve. The article tends to lose traction when you see over-egging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    No wonder the clown uses the pseud “AG”…at least when he is over here…when he is at his spiritual home the Standard it is of course PROFESSOR (he started the caps) Andrew Geddis..

    But funnily enough on this one I am largely with the Professor…”Sue told her that Sue’s father Graham confessed…” I think that’s triple hearsay…But then I seem to remember “dying declarations” have some special status as evidence…can’t remember exactly what the rules are surrounding them…once the Professor has calmed down a bit he might like to tell us..

    On another reading of the post – particularly the first para – I reluctantly find myself even more with the Professor…conspiracies involving all news media in the country are almost certainly imaginary rather than real..

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    AG, do you think their should be any restrictions on legal aid for criminals? I mean in general. I certainly do.

    I find it outrageous that career criminals get legal aids to complain about the law. I refer to Arthur Taylor complaining about prisoner not being allow to smoke to vote for one example. I also get annoyed and a vicious murderer appealing the sentence on the grounds some scumbag commit a more atrocious crime and got less.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Chuck: do you really need to ask? The professor is doubtless one of those who think you should get criminal legal aid regardless of the number of times you have been “before the court”..

    If my political career had continued, I would have pushed a three strikes rule for legal aid…Although it’s not very likely, any citizen could be wrongly accused once…even less likely but still possible, a person could be wrongly charged a second time…Third time before the court? That’s your last defence on the taxpayer…any subsequent appearance: legal aid limited to a plea in mitigation only… Any competent criminal lawyer can prepare and make one of those with about two hours work max…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. wikiriwhis business (4,019 comments) says:

    Anyway, the media conspiracy continues

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. wikiriwhis business (4,019 comments) says:

    “Third time before the court? That’s your last defence on the taxpayer”

    Everyone would have to stay off the roads or afford repetitive fines

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    wiki: Other than drink driving and careless driving causing death or injury, traffic offences are not criminal.

    I am talking about allowing three instances of taxpayer funded legal aid for CRIMINAL offences, which in general, are offences which carry imprisonment as a possible punishment. You dont get legal aid now – and nore should you – for traffic offences.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    David Garrett suggests:

    If my political career had continued, I would have pushed a three strikes rule for legal aid…Although it’s not very likely, any citizen could be wrongly accused once…even less likely but still possible, a person could be wrongly charged a second time…Third time before the court? That’s your last defence on the taxpayer…any subsequent appearance: legal aid limited to a plea in mitigation only…

    Sorry, DG, but no. One of these days when I make it to Auckland I shall take you up on your invitation to visit and bring round a bottle of single malt, with which I shall bribe you to listen to my tale of seven.. yes, seven… arrests, four (expensive, paid for by me or by my family, using my parents’ life savings) trials and not a single conviction. That’s right, I have a cleaner record than you (though I thinks yours is ridiculous) and as clean as our Chief Justice. How on one such occasion someone who – if I’d been guilty of the offences with which I’d been charged – ought to have been in the dock alongside me, as he was there every step of the way, inquired how he was instead a prosecution witness and was told by a policeman I “had it coming”.

    And how it all began by my reporting what the police were up to in terms of massaging statistics and behaving like thugs (and one who played a repeated role in my harassment was later caught exposing himself to a small child in a department store).

    Sure my story would hardly be commonplace. But a hard-and-fast rule cutting legal aid after three instances would be unfair. Each case should be weighed on its merits, as is the case at present.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Rex: I would enjoy the opportunity to debate matters with you face to face…But as to your own somewhat unique record…Easily fixed by the addition of a “unless it would be manifestly unjust” clause re three lots of criminal legal aid being your lot

    Turning it around, are you really in support of some recidivist burglar with dozens or hundreds of convictions to his name getting legal aid every time? (We’ve established that there is at least one NZ burglar with more than 600 convictions)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Dave_1924 (116 comments) says:

    @ Rex “(and one who played a repeated role in my harassment was later caught exposing himself to a small child in a department store).”

    This is on public record is it not – ex officer in Wainui?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @David Garret:

    are you really in support of some recidivist burglar with dozens or hundreds of convictions to his name getting legal aid every time?

    No, that’s why I said “each case on its merits”. I take your point, but I think changing the test to “unless it would be manifestly unjust” is too high a bar. It virtually requires the Legal Aid Commission to weigh the evidence prior to the trial, and I think that, given that criteria, most people – myself included – would get turned down after the third set of charges.

    @Dave_1924:

    Yes, that’s the one. I’d name him but I’m not sure whether it was suppressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    @ Rex “(and one who played a repeated role in my harassment was later caught exposing himself to a small child in a department store).”

    I’ve got a pic of that pervy bastard somewhere Rex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Chuck, Taylor was not represented on that case, he represented others being prevented from smoking and no legal aid was involved. Looking at Legal Aid I’m sure at least 2 of the last 3 NZ murder convictions appealed to the PC were not supported by legal aid, neither is Pora’s. 2 of the 3 mentioned above resulted in finding of Miscarriages of Justice and convictions have been overturned – so on that sample is 66%, and most probably a 100% if Barlow’s appeal wasn’t legal aided – refused legal aid. I know what you think about Pora’s case but even that case couldn’t achieve a legal aid payment. A citizen has the right to plead not guilty and have the charges proven against them. The recent details of the Nat’s progress toward re-offending numbers being reduced, record literacy help which goes to show that the majority are incapable of mounting a defence on their own and are certainly not Lawyers. So how do you suggest they defend themselves, not forgetting the ratio of those that plead guilty is presumable higher than those that do not, meaning that the legal aid goes toward some early guilty pleas being entered and advocacy at sentencing.

    On the basis of the Titford case, even under the previous legal aid criteria he would have been struggling to get legal aid on the basis that his ex wife claimed to have said something not necessarily material to the conviction to her children who denied it. Basically gossip and so not a good example from which to decry others getting legal aid before they are convicted or discharged.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Dave_1924 (116 comments) says:

    @ Rex – thanks for confirming.
    To be blunt the NZ Police need to go back over the whole time he was in the Valley and come clean. People in the Nui have a very dark view on some things that happened. The rumours of links to young people suiciding are very unpleasant. But like you I don’t know if his name was publicised or not. but I thought the Hutt News covered it/put his name in print?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    Withholding legal aid to repeat offenders would be an invitation to the police to fit up anyone with a few convictions knowing that any evidence, however shonky, would not be challenged. That & adding on any other unsolved crimes in the area to improve clearance rates.

    Tempting but no thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    NOS, I have not followed the Taylor case that closely. I just read what I see in the news. I heard he did the case about exercise on his own but was going for legal aid on the smoking and voting issues.

    Like many I am not happy with welfare for lawyers. I not a lawyer let alone who capable of drafting legislation.

    However, I would not advocate no legal aid for murder even if one and a serious criminal history and say was lucky to only been found guilty of manslaughter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    You could be right Chuck he may have been being given legal aid paid advice throughout one of those hearings.

    I don’t see it as ‘welfare’ for lawyers. I see it as fulfilling the role in our democracy that a citizen is entitled to have the charge proven against themselves – part of proof is the essence that it is tested. Speaking about ‘luck’, Haig would have an opinion on that after Fisher ‘found’ against him for compensation on the basis that he had been involved in the death of the fisherman – with at least one person given immunity who of course never went to trial. Then there is the man who suicided in Mt Eden before his murder trial in which an associate was granted immunity, you might recall the man granted immunity went onto be convicted of the death of a north shore housewife in similar circumstances as the case he was granted immunity for.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Don’t forget that the killer of Richard Bluett was given immunity to give evidence against Dean Wickliffe who was convicted. He appealed, won a new trial and new evidence proved that the original police case was a fitup. The OIC of the case got a medal for an excellent job of work even though it was a monumental cock-up.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    Nos, I am not happy with the Haig decision. It should have been made public as all should be. I am not aware of this last case you mentioned.

    I do not thinks that sidetracks from my view that legal aid should be tightened for recidivist offenders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    “and the pay rates are appalling. “… Surely they match the “Living wage” of $18.40/$18.80 per hour?

    How can opulent reward such as this be considered “appalling”? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Can I make a couple of points here?

    Firstly, if Arthur Taylor is taking legal action over conditions in prison, it will be with a grant of civil legal aid, not criminal legal aid. Criminal legal aid is only available for matters pertaining to criminal charges. The criteria is very different.

    Secondly, many (indeed the great majority of) grants of criminal legal aid are used to allow the defendant representation to make a guilty plea, and to ensure they are properly represented in doing so. A much smaller amount of criminal legal aid is used to actually defend charges.

    Thirdly, I am disturbed by the numbers of seemingly intelligent people who are happy for the State to use its unlimited funds to prosecute people, including giving warrants to lawyers guaranteeing them and their firm all the jury trial prosecutions in their area on a pay rate much higher than legal aid pays, but object to the provision of funds to allow people who cannot afford to defend themselves to do so.

    Fourthly, legal aid is not ‘welfare for lawyers’. Very few lawyers actually accept legal aid and the pay rates are appalling. They do not cover the time we spend on a file. Most of the high earners in legal aid are actually doing civil work, not criminal work.

    Fifthly, if legal aid is drastically cut, be prepared to spend much, much more money on the Courts as they get clogged up with self-represented people. Ask a judge what they would think of a criminal list where no lawyers appeared, where there were no duty lawyers, and were all defendants were self-represented. They would tell you that such an list day would be a nightmare for the Courts.

    Sixthly, as pointed out above, if the defendant wants the case looked at again then an affidavit is insufficient. He should appeal based upon new evidence. If he files an appeal with the Court of Appeal then Legal Aid will give consideration to an application for Aid to run the appeal.

    Seventhly, as Nookin has referred to, that isn’t an affidavit, it is a statement. Those are very different things. And the Police won’t do anything. Best to get a PI on to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Surely they match the “Living wage” of $18.40/$18.80 per hour?

    Not always.  If you can’t convince Legal Aid that the matter is within the criteria for an amendment to the grant, then you can earn less than that on a case.

     (I know my comment appears below yours, but is referred to by you, Johnboy.  The reasons is a premature hit of the ‘submit’ button.)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Jesus FES!!!!

    How the shit did you do that? I get to comment on your comment before you post it?????

    I’m beginning to see why you legal folks get paid so much! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    OK OK FES…I submit! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ F E Smith (3,268 comments) says:
    April 5th, 2014 at 9:10 pm

    Nothing worse than submitting prematurely …

    however, on a serious note – are you saying Legal Aid at times actually pay less than the minimum hourly rate, or that without the legal aid, often because of a lack of it, you earn less?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    “Nothing worse than submitting prematurely … ”

    Is that like premature ejaculation Judith?

    You are obviously familiar with problems like that. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (13,248 comments) says:
    April 5th, 2014 at 9:22 pm

    No, no, nothing like it!

    I true lady always feigns disinterest, and a lack of desire – submitting to desirous behaviour before the appropriate time, might lead the male to think she was ‘easy’ …. or sommit like that. A bit like always wear ya knickers on a date, in case a lack of them is perceived as – one is a ‘wanton woman’. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Johnboy would only be wantin you if you wore woolly knickers Judith! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Judith,

    the former (well, both), but compared to the living wage . It would be an extreme case, but it can happen. I have come close, especially when you have a client who won’t leave you alone and whose case involves a lot of discussions with police. If the Police do a mean thing like withdrawing charges prior to what is now Case Review Hearing, then you might only get $215 (before tax and expenses) for the whole case. (Let’s say that you spend a half hour creating the file and writing the relevant letters, then say another hour reviewing the disclosure, and then another hour or so interviewing the client, you are already at 2 1/2 hours and still haven’t got anywhere. Add in discussions with police, Court hearing time and Court waiting time, you can be up to 4 or 5 hours easily before you realise it.)

    Note I did say that was an extreme example. We do try to be much more efficient (read, only spend as much time on it as we absolutely have to).

    Of course, we do our damndest not to spend 11 hours on any matter prior to CRH, or even on the whole case. Spending 11 hours on any judge-alone case is pretty much guaranteed to make you a loss on the matter, unless you can get it declared a complex case and get an amendment to the grant.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    “you can be up to 4 or 5 hours easily ”

    Hell $50/$40 per hour!

    Lawyering sucks! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. edhunter (547 comments) says:

    He stabbed her 216 times with a pair of scissors and claimed the defence of provocation at his trial. He has since unsuccessfully tried to overturn his conviction in both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

    The Ministry of Justice this week confirmed that Weatherston’s legal aid bill stood at $444,981 with a final invoice for the Supreme Court appeal yet to arrive, the Otago Daily Times reports.

    That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the legal aid system.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Hell $50/$40 per hour!

    Yes, before taxes and expenses.  Anyone who thinks that is our actual pay rate is an idiot.

    He stabbed her 216 times with a pair of scissors and claimed the defence of provocation at his trial. He has since unsuccessfully tried to overturn his conviction in both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

    The Ministry of Justice this week confirmed that Weatherston’s legal aid bill stood at $444,981 with a final invoice for the Supreme Court appeal yet to arrive, the Otago Daily Times reports.

    That in a nutshell is what is wrong with the legal aid system.

    So it is ok for the Crown to spend as much as it wants on a criminal trial, but not for the defendant to be allowed to put up a defence?  That defence involved a five week trial, including expert witnesses that were included in that amount.  Murder trials of that sort are always expensive, but the defence is always outspent by the prosecution.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. big bruv (13,931 comments) says:

    Good evening FE.

    In Weatherston’s case a bullet would have saved us all a hell of a lot of money.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    In Weatherston’s case a bullet would have saved us all a hell of a lot of money.

    Well, except that traditionally the bullet came after the trial, not before. However, it would save on prison fees.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Hell $50/$40 per hour!

    Lawyering sucks!

    It certainly would if you were making that amount of money AND had both the extreme pressure and professional challenges that would go with defending a murder suspect.

    The Ministry of Justice this week confirmed that Weatherston’s legal aid bill stood at $444,981 with a final invoice for the Supreme Court appeal yet to arrive, the Otago Daily Times reports.

    From memory NZ has around 60-70 homicides per year on average. Given a not guilty plea in a murder trial can mean the hearing lasts for months (and this is not to mention the months or even years of work put in by a lawyer before the hearing on preparation and smaller interlocutory hearings) and bearing in mind the Weatherston trial was highly complex with the provocation aspect, I don’t see the cost as being anything remarkable.

    It’s obvious you have no idea of the work that goes into a complex criminal trial; or how that legal aid bill would have been split across numerous lawyers working the case; or that it will include disbursements paid to expert witnesses and out of pocket expenses like lawyers’ accommodation and travel; or that it is before tax and practise expenses and in no way shape or form is close to representing a single lawyers’ take home in the pocket figure.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. edhunter (547 comments) says:

    What was complex? He went to her house. He went to her room. He locked the door. Stabbed her 216 times. She died.
    On what planet or dimension was he ever going to be found anything other than guilty of murder?
    His lawyers were almost as narcissistic as he was, and all they achieved while lining their pockets was causing a knee jerk reaction from the govt & denying some the legitimate right to the defence of provocation.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    edhunter,

    it was a very complex case. It also took a great deal of preparation, including experts at every step, plus a 5 week trial. I have been in trials that have gone for that long (and longer) and I can tell you that they are a great deal of work. 16 and 17 hour days, 7 days a week, for a couple of months or more…

    Oh, hold on, I have just read your comment about his lawyers being almost as narcissistic as Weatherstone was. You are obviously an idiot, so I won’t continue.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Weatherston was entitled to run that defence, those were his instructions to his lawyers however misguided they appear to be. Whether people agree with it or not the legal arguments alone over admissibility of such a defence, and to what degree it could be extended, was a display of the common law at work. This was one case where perhaps some of his evidence possibly could have been suppressed, on the other hand public interest was high – all most a fascination in the gruesomeness of having Weatherston’s ‘thinking’ revealed, but isn’t it a function of the law to allow the public to understand to some degree what was within the mind of offenders or an accused, particularly regarding a shocking crime. The problem wasn’t so much the defence of provocation but the inner workings of Weatherston’s mind, his apparent detachment and extreme example of the human condition that can allow one person to believe they were justified or provoked to violence, rare that it was that the man was highly educated, a tutor taking part in the formation of ideas in the minds of those he taught – respected for that.

    It speaks more about the power of grief and hostility to face such public revelations that truthfully rose from the barren mind of Weatherstone than it did about the Law, also of the ability to reconcile that the Weatherston case was a first, and most probably the last and no reason to change a Law because after all the Law as it was worked and he was found guilty as he should have been. That he got to speak from the dock, fascinating with arrogance and horror the public. This was the openness of Justice which allows the chance to understand to some degree that which is not understandable. Weatherston appeared immune from understanding the horror of what he was offering as his defence but it was the duty of his Lawyers to argue his point of view despite the case not being one where a man has lashed out angrily at a spouse over a domestic matter but rather the display of a monster who’d managed to cap his troubled mind while being part of the ‘system.’

    All that aside, the Weatherstone case is not typical, nor is the case of Titford, who also assumes a position that everyone else is at fault or lying and that only he comprehends his innocence and victimisation from the world in general. Neither is a great example as to the tenet of a persons right to a defence, to stand before accusations from a powerful state with a man or woman trained to test those accusations least they be untrue, fabricated, exaggerated or with a explanation that renders the accused person a defence of being not guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    You have all become sidetracked from the serious issue of a man who has been locked away for 24 years for crimes in which no one died. That in itself should be a warning sign that something fishy’s going on. Graham Burton only got 26 years. Many murderers are doing much less prison time than Allan Titford (who greatly inconvenienced a succession of governments by forensically proving that a Maori land claim on his farm was completely bogus).

    For a quarter of a century Allan has been harassed by iwi, politicians (notably John Carter) and police (including being beaten up when he complained by a constable Rhett Brown, who offered Allan the most heartfelt apology for the Crown’s treatment years later, but refused to make it public lest it affected his new career as a public speaker).

    Now, after encouragement from John Carter MP, his formerly very supportive wife has also turned on him, but only after she herself was threatened with imprisonment over a matter concerning her own bankruptcy which I’ve yet to get totally clear on.

    Her attacks on Allan became particularly vicious once she learned he had taken up with another woman (after she had left him).

    My next post will reveal the statement of her daughter’s boyfriend who wrote “Susan was telling us that she doesn’t care if she has to lie but she’s going to somehow make sure that Allan (Titford) gets locked up so she gets all the land and money.”

    Sue has responded to my evidence by getting huffy, but not refuting it. She wants me to ask Allan a question and publish his answer. I have replied:

    “Sue, before I ask Allan anything, I think it’s fair that you tell us why you said at different times that:

    1) Allan burned down the house, and
    2) Your father burned down the house.

    1) Allan raped you on or about 9 July 2009, and (according to your own diary)
    2) Allan did not rape you, but only pushed you out of bed.

    1) You said you offered the children $5000 each, while
    2) Each of the children said you didn’t.

    If you will answer my questions, I will happily ask Allan yours, and post his answers. You should know that whenever Ross Baker, Martin Doutre or I have asked Allan to prove you wrong on document evidence (such as over the sale agreement, which you say he got you to forge years later), he has been able to do so.

    Now we would like to answer our legitimate concerns about your honesty.”

    Let me say here that of course I cannot say that I know for sure that Allan Titford is innocent of all the charges on which he was convicted. How could I?

    But as time goes by and I see more and more evidence of Sue and her children having lied to enrich themselves, and of Allan receiving a totally one-sided trial (with no witnesses called in his support by his legal aid lawyer John Moroney, despite him being given several pages of names), I am becoming more and more convinced of his innocence.

    I am not a complete idiot. I know that I am siding with a man who has been thoroughly vilified by the court and media, and who the public believe to be a monster.

    Neither am I surprised that people here are sceptical of a state conspiracy to silence him. So was I when I first heard these things. I am not a natural conspiracy theorist, but I am certainly aware of a lot of state corruption in and around the Treaty industry, much of which is hidden by a sycophantic media.

    But as I continue to roll out the evidence (and there’s much, much more), I ask you to bear in mind that Allan Titford has been put away for 24 years solely on the evidence of people who have a great deal to gain by his incarceration.

    I have looked into the man’s eyes and asked him all the hard questions. It would actually be a great relief if the look I saw was guilt, because then I could then safely abandon him to his fate and get on with something more enjoyable.

    But that’s not what I’m seeing. I see a man who, at the very least, deserves a two-sided trial.

    I thank David Farrar for being the only person from any kind of medium to air this evidence. The Paul Henry Show has it, but their lawyer advises them that they should not publish in advance of an appeal.

    Well, why not? An appeal is not before a jury, but before seasoned judges. A former newspaper editor told me that while they certainly would not publish evidence that might influence a jury trial, the same was not true of an appeal.

    As far as I am concerned, if the public can be influenced to believe Allan Titford is a monster, they can also be exposed to evidence that his wife and kids are chronic liars.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    those were his instructions to his lawyers however misguided they appear to be. Whether people agree with it or not the legal arguments alone over admissibility of such a defence, and to what degree it could be extended, was a display of the common law at work.

    And a High Court judge found, as a matter of fact and law, that there was sufficient evidence to allow the defence to go to the jury. That is a vital point that most people forget.  This wasn’t some ‘pie in the sky’ defence, made up by the lawyers.  This was a real, live, issue for which there was real, expert, evidence.

    That it was massively unpopular was mainlly ecause people didn’t understand the legal concept of provocation, and because our worthless media decided to capitalise on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    Please also bear in mind that the first time Allan Titford met his state-paid legal aid lawyer, John Moroney, was on the first day of his trial, where he had to defend 58 charges.

    Moroney would not even visit Allan – kind of necessary since Allan had been banned (for ridiculous reasons) from travelling north of the Waikato, and his lawyer was on the North Shore.

    And he was congratulated by the judge for not going too hard on Allan’s wife and children. At the very least he should have hammered them for their conflicting evidence over Sue offering them $5000 each.

    If the key witnesses can lie once, doesn’t that suggest to you that they could well be lying about everything? A competent lawyer should have climbed on this.

    And yet he neither did this, nor called a single witness in Titford’s defence when there were many (including Sue’s own brother) who would have loved to testify against his lying wife and lying, probably drug-addled kids (at least one of whom is a known dealer and gang associate).

    Now Allan has been stripped of all his money, and is reliant on another plea for legal aid (which, if granted at all, will likely come just before the hearing, like last time, allowing no time for proper preparation – this being the way the state has always treated Allan Titford).

    The only hope is if a courageous lawyer is prepared to work pro bono. A Deborah Manning. Let’s know if you know one: john@johnansell.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. wiseowl (899 comments) says:

    I was about to say people had become sidetracked when you posted again John.

    I have read further details you have online and it is something about this country that concerns me.
    I have noted other issues taken up by people I know where whatever they do appears to be quashed in some way or another.

    People don’t swear affidavits without serious consideration of what they are doing.

    Good on you for exposing this

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    Wiseowl @ 8.05

    “People don’t swear affidavits without serious consideration of what they are doing.”

    That’s the point. They haven’t sworn affidavits.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. wiseowl (899 comments) says:

    Thanks Nookin .I should not have assumed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Doutre (1 comment) says:

    While the more academically-minded on this blog seemingly busy themselves with nit-picking, a simple perusal of Wikipedia gives us a reasonable, lay-person description of what would be considered to be an “Affidavit”:

    ‘An affidavit (/ˌæfɨˈdeɪvɨt/ A-fə-DAY-vət) is a written sworn statement of fact voluntarily made by an affiant or deponent under an oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by law.

    Such statement is witnessed as to the authenticity of the affiant’s signature by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or commissioner of oaths.

    The name is Medieval Latin for he/she has declared upon oath. An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other words, it contains a verification, meaning it is under oath or penalty of perjury, and this serves as evidence to its veracity and is required for court proceedings.’
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit

    The definition given does, very adequately, describe what Sheryll Mary Titford supplied for the benefit of the court, as moved to do so by her own conscience and integrity as an honest person seeking justice.

    Her first communication naturally went through police channels as verbal testimony, culminating in a statement directly to Sgt. Eddie Evans, the individual handling the Titford case and obliged by law to grant Allan Titford full police disclosure. Eddie Evans assured Sheryll that her statement was noted (before sentencing).

    Sheryll later followed-up her verbal testimony in writing and, after very eloquently recording all of the relevant details, swore an oath before M. M. Botha, Declarations Officer, NZ Police, who in turn witnessed her signature.

    Ileen McGrath, who had also come into possession of this information through year-2011 interaction with Sheryll Mary Titford, first gave verbal testimony to an individual in the law firm defending Allan Titford (before sentencing).

    Later, she went before Justice of the Peace, Graham Creahan and swore and oath related to the veracity of her written statement.

    Mr. Creahan designated in his final stamping and signing of Ileen McGrath’s written document that she had sworn an ‘Affidavit’ in his presence, as opposed to an ‘Affirmation’ or ‘Declaration’.

    Regardless of how one wishes to categorise these documents in a legal sense, both ladies have done all in their power to bring true facts to the attention of the authorities.

    Martin Doutré.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. G. Graham (1 comment) says:

    Bittersweet vindication for iwi, last updated 05:00, 24/11/2013 by SIMON DAY AND ADAM DUDDING.

    Moengaroa Murray bristles when she hears the land that runs from the ridgeline road to the white sand beach on the Far North’s Kauri Coast referred to as the “Titford farm”. (so where is you evidence Moengaroa? No one else has as yet produced valid hard evidence for, in comparison to loads of evidence against)

    As Judge Duncan Harvey sentenced Allan Titford to 24 years’ jail, he said it was time for New Zealanders “to learn the truth” about a man who had become a symbol of the perceived failings of the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process. (thank you judge, so why wasn’t Allan Titford allowed his witnesses?)

    With two affidavits to prove Mrs Titford lied to court and evidence to prove these affidavits were carried to Allan’s defence lawyer prior to the trial, why was Allan convicted?

    Want to read the truth? Log on to, “Allan Titford Political prisoner”, put out by Ross Baker, researcher for the One NZ Foundation, and you will be able to read these affidavits and more evidence condemning Allan’s convictions.

    G. Graham

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. deadrightkev (472 comments) says:

    I am surprised that DPF was actually allowed to post on his issue. I strongly suspect that lifting up this particular rock might uncover a very nasty can of worms that could damage both National and Labour for years to come.

    How convenient for them that the NZ media will not have the kahunas or intelligence to go there.

    Of course the simple solution is to assassinate John Ansells character which is no doubt what the pathetic NZ media will do. There you go, problem solved.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Unity (588 comments) says:

    There is something very decidedly dodgy about this Titford case and I find it staggering that a man who has not even killed someone would get 24 years in jail. Murderers would be hard-pressed to receive a sentence of this length.

    If only we still had the Privy Council because I feel this case needs to go before an independent body to re-evaluate all of the evidence and certainly to allow Alan Titford to have decent representation and to be able to present every bit of evidence he has. It doesn’t seem this has happened and from what I’ve read about this case, a gross miscarriage of justice could well have – and probably has – happened.

    New Zealand is too small to trust that he would get a fair evaluation from the Judiciary in this country. It must be from a body from outside the country. This is why it is ludicrous that we still don’t have the Privy Council who have judged so many unsafe convictions already. John Key brought back knighthoods as more or less his first job when he came to power. He needs to bring back the Privy Council post haste.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    Quite. And there’s much more, such as:

    http://treatygate.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/ulanda-titford-desperate-to-see-her-dad-and-said-sue-put-sewage-in-his-food/

    http://treatygate.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/daughters-boyfriend-accuses-sue-and-family-of-lying-bribing-and-threatening-to-kill/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    AG said: “I treat proclaimations from John Ansell about Alan Titford with the same level of scepticism as I treat claims about David Bain by Joe Karam.”

    Thanks for the compliment. After all, Joe won.

    Nookin said I “over-egged” the story by calling signed statements witnessed by JPs or police declarations officers “affidavits”.

    What would you call them?

    I make no apology for presenting the facts bluntly. I think we need more plain speaking in this wimpish country, not less.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I found this bit from John Ansell quite funny:
    ‘Last Saturday, I visited Allan Titford in his new home of Rimutaka Prison in Upper Hutt. I will be going over the hill again tomorrow, and hopefully every Saturday until I find a good reason to abandon him to his fate, or until he is released.

    (Or until someone tampers with my brakes.)’

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