Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 44 Newer→ Last
-
a prosecution that's doomed from the start.
With a filmed confession? I think I could probably litigate that one successfully.
Maybe a resident lawyer could comment?
-
Andrew, also discussed yesterday - saying you "lashed out" does not amount to enough of a confession of assault. TVNZ interviewed Scott Optican so presumably is on their site somewhere.
-
Sue,
"lashed out" does not sound the same to me as 'i broke her back in 4 places'
i think of lashed out as maybe a slap that you immediately go 'oh no'
as compare to jake the muss style bash -
"I very anti-violence, antismacking etc. but...."
Yep, you never hit me once while I sat in your English class. I hope I have the right Ian MacKay.
-
It is not really. It may be what happened, but cracking 3 (or 4, or 5 depending on the "facts") vertebrae is not quite breaking your back. We don't really know. Did he kick her in the head? Maybe but the our judgements are predicated on media reports.
If we all followed your terrifyingly stringent standards for facts and evidence before discussing any issues, Ian, I think we might end up shutting down PA System altogether...
-
Yeah Ian, it was just an innocent mistake. An innocent mistake he felt worth $100k to cover up.
Umm......make that $170k according to....
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520973
-
Inflation
-
If we all followed your terrifyingly stringent standards for facts and evidence before discussing any issues, Ian, I think we might end up shutting down PA System altogether...
Yeah, why let a little common sense get in the way of a good discussion when we can have conjecture and hysteria.....
shattered back...
Kicked repeatedly...
smashed...
The facts of the matter are that none of us were there and so any "facts and evidence" that we have is all supposition...
-
At least the deal wasn't in cheddar...
-
Am I just a bit tired and cynical on a Friday afternoon or is there an implication in that article that because the payout was 170k, rather than 100k, that things have changed?
One thing is for sure, the timing of the second payout makes it less likely to be for “loss of income” or whatever was in the statement that Holmes wrote.
-
Michael, we know enough - and it seems so do his employers. If the scant public details were not true wouldn't his lawyers have got injunctions and stopped further publication?
-
The facts of the matter are that none of us were there and so any "facts and evidence" that we have is all supposition...
Oh yes, the time-honoured 'if a tree falls in the forest' analysis. That's a brilliant way to approach any and all issues. Isn't it funny how people keep crazily trying to, like, *find out stuff*, when they could just give up, safe in the assumption that if they weren't there, they have no hope of ever knowing anything?
-
Perhaps he slapped her and she stepped back and fell onto the corner of the dressing table.
Yes, of course, let's just make things up ...
On the other hand, before Veitch's press conference, the Dom Post stated as fact that Veitch repeatedly kicked his partner as she lay on the floor. They appear to have their original source, plus a Vodafone workmate who testified to the grievous impact on the victim:
Veitch, 34, has made no comment on the secret payout and the 2006 assault, in which he repeatedly kicked Ms Dunne-Powell, fracturing her vertebrae in four places and inflicting a head injury.
She spent months away from her job as Vodafone's general manager of marketing, had a breakdown and was later forced to quit work.
A former Vodafone colleague said Veitch had kicked his former lover as she lay on the floor of his bedroom. "He kicked her so hard he broke four vertebrae ... She couldn't walk.
"She went from a lovely sporty girl to someone who lost a lot of back muscle. She was seriously weakened."
Not a word of anything the paper reported has been denied, despite the staging of a press conference, which one would think would be the ideal place to do so.
There has been a good deal of effort put into imagining more benign explanations for these serious injuries. I think the most straightforward explanation is that what the newspaper has reported is basically true.
-
The facts of the matter are that none of us were there...
You're very confident of that - what evidence do you have to support that assertion?
Not that I'm saying one of the commenters here is either of the principals in disguise, it's just that you obviously feel confident enough to make that assumption in the absence of evidence either way.
We take short cuts in thinking like that all the time, otherwise we could barely venture an opinion on the weather unless we're outside. Unless we're a Crown prosecutor or juror or other maker of important decisions, it's ok to do that.
-
Shep: Not me. I have never taught English to anyone, except my sons of course.
Danielle:If we all followed your terrifyingly stringent standards for facts and evidence before discussing any issues, Ian, I think we might end up shutting down PA System altogether...
All in favour of discussing issues and ideas and being wrong at times. But when a person is condemned without trial I, think that it is a form of bullying. Are you suggesting that PA is run on our not attempting to use facts as a basis for opinions? Sounds a bit fanciful to me.
-
If the scant public details were not true wouldn't his lawyers have got injunctions and stopped further publication?
In general I agree....... but for maybe two possible exceptions..... If reality is actually WORSE than the rumours, you might tend to stay silent.....
Or, more likely, if reality is bad, and the rumours are "close enough", you might prefere to live with the rumours staying just rumours than by refuting them in a legal setting.....
"I'm going to sue you for saying I kicked her five times..... " doesnt look so good when the court testimony is " I only kicked her 3 times".... You might win the defamation case, but confirm publicly just exactly how much of an arsehole you really are...
A slight change to an old saying...
"Better to remain silent and be thought a dick than open your mouth and remove all doubt." -
But when a person is condemned without trial I, think that it is a form of bullying.
Good grief, poor Tony Veitch. Ian, whose fault is it that he didn't go to trial?
Please don't say it was the victim's fault for not reporting it. I don't buy that.
-
That's a brilliant way to approach any and all issues. Isn't it funny how people keep crazily trying to, like, *find out stuff*, when they could just give up, safe in the assumption that if they weren't there, they have no hope of ever knowing anything?
But we're not trying to"find out stuff" here (and by here I mean "The System".
All we are doing (right now) is chinese whispering....Yes, of course, let's just make things up ...
Wasn't the post yesterday, when someone said "shattering her back", making stuff up?
The article that you quote verbatim above says "fracturing".
All degrees of badness I know, but these things do have a habit of growing.... -
Not a word of anything the paper reported has been denied, despite the staging of a press conference, which one would think would be the ideal place to do so.
As I recall, In the press conference, Veitch did say that "some" of the reported details were incorrect, but offered no further clarity...
-
Fletcher, yes I did wonder whether the payoff being bigger was one of the details that Veitch was alluding to when he said some o the facts was wrong...
There has been a good deal of effort put into imagining more benign explanations for these serious injuries.
And I'd like to hear more about what is driving that effort, from those who have made it.
-
Are you suggesting that PA is run on our not attempting to use facts as a basis for opinions?
Clearly not. I'm just pointing out that the little 'we weren't there! we don't know!' dance some of you are doing over this particular issue has a smidge of the Doth Protest Too Much about it.
Or, what Russell said.
-
OK. Let the Dom Post article be an honest report based on credible witness. Should the lack of a denial in a public statement automatically assume you must be guilty? I accuse you. You did not deny it. Therefore you are guilty. Mmm. (The issue is the interesting bit. Not the person.)
I quit. -
Don't be disingenuous Ian, it went more like this:
I accuse you. You did not deny it, In fact you admitted a lot of it. Therefore you are guilty.
-
Clearly not. I'm just pointing out that the little 'we weren't there! we don't know!' dance some of you are doing over this particular issue has a smidge of the Doth Protest Too Much about it.
Yeah, but what do we have to gain by Protesting Too Much?
I don't know Veitch. Never met the guy.I just want discussion to move back to the centre ground sometimes and not be to far in either direction, which conversations like this can do....
All I am saying is that there is a lot of stuff that we don't know, and until we do know it (from the Courts, Woman's Weekly, whatever...) we are making huge assumptions.... -
Put that way, Ian, it does sound a little Wishartian. But unlike Investigate, the Dom Post is an ideal target for a keen defamation lawyer with a financially comfortable client - well-funded and with a respectable reputation to defend. Assuming the Dom Post makes an honest report based on a credible witness is different from assuming a random person on the internet has done so.
It's not enough to convict, but it is enough to discuss, especially since we've heard the unmediated other side of the story.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.