Conflicting evidence

May 22nd, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

’s estranged wife has told a court that asked for a political donation to be split into two cheques so it could be kept anonymous.

But her testimony differs from Kim Dotcom’s yesterday, when he said she had left a dinner before the donation was discussed. …

’s evidence of being present during the donations discussions conflicted with Kim Dotcom’s version yesterday.

Kim Dotcom had said his wife had left the lunch before the donation was discussed, but Mona Dotcom was adamant today that she was present.

She also said the staff member who made out the cheques was not there when others had testified he was.

It is not unusual for witness to differ on small facts. It seems unusual to differ on something as basic as whether or not Mrs Dotcom was present.

Regardless of the Dotcom testimony, I have said in the past that no candidate should sign a donation and expense disclosure form without carefully reading every line of it, and personally satisfying themselves it is correct. Regardless of the verdict, I don’t think what John Banks did was good practice.

Tags: , ,

31 Responses to “Conflicting evidence”

  1. unitedtribes (30 comments) says:

    Looks like KDC was a bit worried what Mona might sat given the new arrangements so decided it was best that Mona just wasn’t there at all at the crucial time.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    I have said in the past that no candidate should sign a donation and expense disclosure form without carefully reading every line of it, and personally satisfying themselves it is correct.

    Ok, legal disclosure forms aside – is it not prudent to read, from top to bottom, and understand *any* document that you sign your name to?

    It seems unusual to differ on something as basic as whether or not Mrs Dotcom was present.

    It also seems unusual to differ on whether you’d met a large boisterous German chap, whether you’d taken a ride in a helicopter, whether you’d asked for a donation, I mean the list goes on…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Sam (501 comments) says:

    Surely the GSCB can provide recordings of the actual conversation ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Another twist.

    Act MP John Banks told police Kim Dotcom was on ‘another planet to him’ and the internet entrepreneur had offered to donate $200,000 to his failed 2010 bid for the Auckland mayoralty.

    Banks called the offer “outrageous”.

    He told police he asked Mr Dotcom for a donation as the pair talked in Mr Dotcom’s conservatory, where Banks remembered a 600kg statute of a fighting warrior being on display.

    Banks didn’t accept the $200,000 offer and suggested $25,000.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11259681

    If Banks gives evidence it will be interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    It seems unusual to differ on something as basic as whether or not Mrs Dotcom was present.

    Not really. People’s memory of whether they themselves witnessed something or not is going to be a lot better than their memory of whether some different person witnessed something or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Yvette (2,808 comments) says:

    Sam – Surely the GSCB can provide recordings of the actual conversation :-)

    And if not them, maybe Whaleoil :-) :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Sponge (176 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (2,101 comments) says:
    May 22nd, 2014 at 2:58 pm
    It seems unusual to differ on something as basic as whether or not Mrs Dotcom was present.

    Not really. People’s memory of whether they themselves witnessed something or not is going to be a lot better than their memory of whether some different person witnessed something or not.

    Then why do the looney left expect Key to remember the exact detail of every conversion he has ever had? Is it different for him?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. calendar girl (1,232 comments) says:

    Such a fundamental conflict in key prosecution evidence suggests that the Court will find it difficult to convict John Banks.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Then why do the looney left expect Key to remember the exact detail of every conversion he has ever had? Is it different for him?

    Oh, but he does remember every detail of every conversation he has – except for those which are slightly inconvinient to remember, of course. See the other thread. Peas in a pod.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Yvette (2,808 comments) says:

    Was there not at least five amounts of $25,000 amongst the anonymous total?
    If two were Dotcom’s, one wonders if the others were all single donations or some multiple, as requested of Dotcom?
    Can this even be asked or is all this krap sub judice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. freethinker (691 comments) says:

    Banks has responsibility for the return – he signed it – just like Police say the cars registered to you so you are liable for any offence committed by the car – same principle so same result unless Banks can prove he did not sign the return or prove he did ask if all anonymous donations were indeed anonymous. Failure should mean Banks having a 2 year Mt Eden hoiliday at taxpayers expense.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Don the Kiwi (1,750 comments) says:

    Wonder if Mona is white-anting her ex husband.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    freethinker
    Agreed. Signing something surely means taking responsibility for the contents. Or can I stop paying my mortgage because I didn’t read if before signing?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    There are two types of offences those which require intent and those that do not.

    The politicians are rapidly changing all our laws so that we get “done” for unintentional things , mistakes, oversights .

    Mean while the legislation which affects politicians retain the intent ingredient . Its time that all offences are equal and we should not have to prove intent but we should not be prosecuted for accidental oversights either .

    In other words when a speed camera catches you for a momentary over sight you should not be guilty, they should have to prove that you drove some distance at the excess speed not just at the spot where the camera was at the bottom of the slope.

    At the same time if you have responsibility for filling in a form , then you certify that it is correct by putting your signature to it .

    You cannot accidentally sign something at the very least he was reckless where he had a legal duty to be accurate but personally I think this was intentional , your signature is supposed to be your seal indicating that the contents are certified by you.

    Does this mean that anything he has signed as a minster or Mayor may also lack credibility? Is he really diminishing the value of his signature to the extent that it is meaningless? Brand John Banks is done and dusted , his signature is apparently worthless as it does not represent his word.

    Try telling a lawyer that yes that was my signature but I didn’t know what I was signing.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Paulus (2,626 comments) says:

    Surely the DotCrim’s entourage’s accounts of whether they gave a donation etc or not is not relevant to the charge of signing a false declaration. The facts of the donation are not relevant .

    The case is whether Banks signed the papers without reading them or not, believing them to be a true record.
    He relied upon his business manager, of many years, that the information was correctly recorded.

    I have in past many years signed detailed papers without putting same to detailed scrutiny, having relied upon the say of, say my lawyer, or company secretary, that they represent what was discussed.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    Paulus

    To do so you do it at your own risk Your lawyer could prepare an affidavit for you , you sign it, it is not true , then you are the one who faces the music it is up to you to make corrections and ensure it is true before you sign it, otherwise let the person who created the document sign it and let them take the responsibility .

    When responsibility is assigned to you you cannot delegate it .

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Then why do the looney left expect Key to remember the exact detail of every conversion he has ever had? Is it different for him?

    Again, not really. Dotcom may be misremembering whether some other person was present at an incident a couple of years ago; Key claimed not to remember meetings he himself was at and phone calls he himself had made a few months ago. The first one sounds like typical eyewitness recollection failure, the second one sounds like lying or early-onset Alzheimers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Sponge (176 comments) says:

    The first one sounds like typical eyewitness recollection failure, the second one sounds like lying or early-onset Alzheimers.

    Only if that’s what you want it to sound like. Tinfoil hat stuff.

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

    Dotcom is a sideshow, the Sky City lawyer and Morrison’s evidence will sink Banks

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Tauhei Notts (1,711 comments) says:

    GTP; if you mean that Mr Treacey, then I think you are wrong.
    I happened to be there in the public gallery at 2.15 yesterday when that bloke was on the stand. A very shifty character if ever I have seen one. Compared to the Chief Executive Officer’s Personal Assistant who was so good; that lawyer, if that is what he is, was decidedly flakey.
    Morrison’s evidence will be interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Paulus: It is no use discussing delicate financial details with any of the left, the only papers they are familiar with are Winz and ACC forms.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Johnboy (16,497 comments) says:

    I looked at the photo’s of Mona and then I looked at the photo’s of DotCrim……The mind boggled! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Mark Craig (31 comments) says:

    igm are you here really as red (master bater )incognito , or are you his twin fucked up soulmate .Get help man before you are committed .You and your pathetic ilk are precisely the reason why the Actoids are at .00003% in the polls.etc etc .Politics is the art of the possible which is precisely why the incumbent lot have survived this long.useless incompetents that they are .I am sitting here gazing reverentially at the photo of Michael Joseph Savage over my mantelpiece ,shaking my head and wondering what demonic forces colluded to destroy this saints dream .Pip pip what old fruit ,eagerly awaiting a pathetic return of serve.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Johnboy (16,497 comments) says:

    Helen’s photos (airbrushed or not) ruined the Labour dream for most of us Mark! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    Jones seems to have lost the plot here. He’s pitching for reasonable doubt as though it is a trial by Jury likely to be influenced solely by Dotcom’s past, when in fact it is by Judge alone. It bears mentioning that Banks sheltering under ‘Dotcom is a fraud’ seems to miss the point that it is Banksie enduring a test of fraudulence. I don’t see how the apparent ‘conflicting’ evidence is of any help to Banks when Jones has already advanced that the evidence against Banks is ‘controlled’ by Dotcom, if that were the case it would all be the same. Even the ex head of security as well as Dotcom’s estranged wife have confirmed details of Banks asking for anonymous cheques. If Banks gives evidence it will be very interesting to hear his answers as to any questions regarding his claim that he turned down 200,000. That’s a beaut.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    In my considered opinion, after hearing the recording of the Police interview of John Banks, arising from the complaint made by myself, Lisa Prager and Trevor Mallard – it is now no longer a question of whether or not Banks will be convicted, it is for how long will he be imprisoned.

    This is an historic and unprecedented court case.

    I believe that arising from this case – the days of Ministers of the Crown being a political form of ‘protected species’ will be over.

    About time.

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    This is an active court case, I wonder if there are any legal issues around discussing the details.

    Or , is that rule only for criminal cases?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Mark: If I had a photo of MJS it would be burned real quick, along with any other reference to the socialist regime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Mark: Forgot to ask . . . is the photo of MJS on a mantelpiece in a taxpayer-funded State house? Like the rest of your ilk, you would be a fiscally illiterate loser.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. MH (751 comments) says:

    The dog collar will be taken from the mantlepiece of Dick Prebble’s abode and reduced to a mere ankle bracelet by silversmiths from the Lord of the Rings,with flashing coloured lights, to be ceremoniously placed on the dainty dancing leg of one J.Banks. He will be issued with a wet Bus ticket and told not to proceed further than the walls of greater Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. rg (214 comments) says:

    The whole thing is a side show because the only evidence that can convict Banks of knowingly signing a false document is evidence that proves he read the return and he knew it is false. The undisputed evidence so far presented is that he did not read it. Therefore no case to answer. Banks would be guilty of the lessor offence of signing a false document but that is not what he is charged with.

    Dotcom and his lot are clearly lying, you can not have such a fundamental difference in your evidence. The media reports are very biased the headline was that Dotcom’s wife backs up her husband when in fact she contradited him on the material matter of who was present.
    Sky city evidence will be more clear although again totally irrelevant to the charge as it does not prove that Banks knew it was false. To convict the evidence has to be of actual knowledge, not implied knowledge.

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