Hard News: Veitch
619 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 25 Newer→ Last
-
I now look forward to working with the charities who I love and that is the best thing about this sentence, I can get back to working with the charities and doing my community service with charities that I am passionate about.
So, how many charities want to taint themselves by being associated with a convicted domestic abuser?
I'm sure the queue will be a mile long.
-
The guy's admitted beating his partner. It's hard to see how anything we say could damage his reputation more than what he has already publicly admitted himself.
This really doesn't fly.
And you really don't have much imagination :-)
-
Graeme: think of it as a more amusing way of asserting truth as a defence. And of showing where I rank domestic abusers in my heirarchy or jerks.
-
I'm all ears as well - specially as I never read the Sunday papers - but surely if it could be said without repercussions Russell would be saying it outright...
Yes. Sources and all that. But there are lawyers at the High Court.
-
RB; you're going to have to tell us, otherwise we'll start guessing.
And you know where that will lead...
-
there are lawyers at the High Court.
You'll be telling us there's traffic on Auckland's roads next, careful.
-
Perhaps someone's being sued for damage to his toe
-
Alright, seems I can tell you part of it.
Remember how Veitch's team hired a private investigator to dig up things about Dunne-Powell that could be used in the forthcoming trial?
Imagine if that information was somehow "leaked" to the Sunday papers, in the most unflattering way possible.
And imagine this in a context where Veitch and his lawyers are simultaneously issuing threats against media planning to tell the victim's story.
That sort of thing.
Meanwhile 3 News has reported that Olympic chef de mission Dave Currie was also told his character reference was in support of a passport application.
And the final paragraph from Susan Devoy's reference, referring specifically to a passport application, was deleted from the document presented to the court.
Far freakin' out.
I actually hope Grieve and Hughes are acting under instructions rather than providing the advice, because this seems very bad to me.
-
Extraordinary. So in spite of this thing not going to trial there will be blood on the floor after all, to use Grieve's classy phrasing, and decency be damned?
I'm mentally drafting the letter I'm going to send to the first broadcaster that avails itself of the services of this fine upstanding person.
-
After seeing that a man got 180 hours for stealing cheese, I decide to have a look (site:.nz "300 hours" "community service") what others did to get the same sentence.
Quitting NZ and carrying on a business while insolvent.
Stealing a pre-production copy of Sione's Wedding (note, Robbery, this is not an invitation to talk about copyright)
Driving with a blood alcohol of 739mcg/L
Not passing on employee PAYE to IRD
These are the kinds of things that normally attract 300 hours of community service.
-
Imagine if that information was somehow "leaked" to the Sunday papers, in the most unflattering way possible.
I wonder if the papers are going to act as his PR machines, given the reaction so far.
-
And the final paragraph from Susan Devoy's reference, referring specifically to a passport application, was deleted from the document presented to the court.
Seems to me that that is misleading the court, if the judge is so inclined (I would be, but that's me). Also, IMHO, Dame Susan would be justified in taking Grieve to the Law Society for "conduct unbecoming". Graeme?
Remember how Veitch's team hired a private investigator to dig up things about Dunne-Powell that could be used in the forthcoming trial?
Imagine if that information was somehow "leaked" to the Sunday papers, in the most unflattering way possible.
And imagine this in a context where Veitch and his lawyers are simultaneously issuing threats against media planning to tell the victim's story.
Given that only Team Veitch would have had access to the material, one wonders how it could have been "leaked" without their direct involvement.
And what's the pretext that Veitch could base his threats on? Surely not concern for Kristin Dunne-Powell's welfare? Bit late for that.
-
Seems to me that that is misleading the court, if the judge is so inclined (I would be, but that's me). Also, IMHO, Dame Susan would be justified in taking Grieve to the Law Society for "conduct unbecoming". Graeme?
Grieve is claiming to know nothing and that it was Veitch's father who solicited the references.
-
Well you have to learn how to be an honourable man from somewhere, I guess.
-
Seems to me that that is misleading the court, if the judge is so inclined (I would be, but that's me). Also, IMHO, Dame Susan would be justified in taking Grieve to the Law Society for "conduct unbecoming". Graeme?
Grieve is claiming to know nothing and that it was Veitch's father who solicited the references.
I would be *very* surprised if it turned out that anyone on the legal team had knowingly have put a misleading character reference before the Court in circumstances like this.
If they did, I suspect that a law society complaint from the referee (or indeed from the judge herself) would be only one of their worries . Anyone who did would find that the next judge will very likely not believe you when you hand up a reference on behalf of the next client. If they worked for a firm, they would also be likely to be looking for new employment the next day.
-
I've refrained from commenting, because while I share the opinions of many who have commented, I have not felt that I have had anything unique to add to the conversation.
However, I find this to be particularly vile (sorry, I don't mean the poster, I mean the actions by Veitch):
I really wonder if all the talk of suicide attempts wasn't just a smart gambit on the part of the defence team, knowing that when the time came it could be used to leverage their client out of a custodial sentence.
More than one close family member of mine has attempted (and succeeded) in suicide attempts, and I've noticed also someone who's tried the 'hey, look at me, look what you've driven me to' kind of grandstanding and emotional blackmail and the effect that that has had on people around them, and I've had to counsel students of mine who have been contemplating suicide (already after their own failed attempts) and I have only recently emerged from my own depressive (__not__ suicidal) illness of a three-four year period and I find the behaviour of Veitch and his defence team in trying this gambit to be utterly, utterly disgusting.
Suicidal feelings are no trivial matter (OK, no shit, Sherlock, and all that), but the kind of people who use it and its effect on people around them as yet another component of their narcissistic self-dramatisation fill me with no compassion at all, just contempt. Had Veitch (clearly incompetent) succeeded, I would have made the most ruthlessly Darwinist interpretation of his action.
I am scarcely less disgusted by his supporters, who unlike Susan Devoy, were not deceived, or did not care that they were.
Damn, that contributes nothing new, violating my own rule. It even looks like the sort of rant you'd see in the Herald's 'Your Views' sewer. Sorry. I've just had to deal with the real thing too many times.
-
I think the judge did a judgy job to the best of her ability with all information to hand.That is what Law seems (to me)to be.Justice on t'other hand.......
Also legal aid can get you very expensive Lawyers so money isn't always the case.
I do think he is doing a fine job of digging a deeper grave so keep ya shovels handy. Give him the helping hand he seems to be asking for. For Russells sake wait until Monday. -
I think the judge did a judgy job to the best of her ability with all information to hand.That is what Law seems (to me)to be.Justice on t'other hand.......
I do agree, alas. The legals system that must be supported is the worst of all possible systems - except for all the others. A sentence has to delivered according to the case presented. I suspect that had I been on the jury trying Rickards, for example, I would have been compelled to extend the benefit of the doubt according to the evidence as it was presented in the context of the trial. [grits teeth]
This may account for my rage, which disturbs me as I don't imagine myself as the sort who'd join a lynch mob. It's just that I don't believe in karma.. but if there were such a thing, I'd be able to account for the quantity of E. coli in my gut.
-
people who use it and its effect on people around them
If that's true, it's disgusting - but it is nothing more than speculation right now. Although we were guided in our earlier discussions about this by assessments of character and probability, I respect the current vulnerability of this forum as Russell has described it.
-
While I think the reluctance to accept genuine responsibility on the part of the guilty party is nauseating, I have to say that I think both parties (in Veitch's case spectacularly so) will be extremely ill-advised to continue to try and prosecute this matter via PR and media over the next few weeks.
While its infinitely more understandable on the part of the complainant (wanting to be able to - finally - tell her story in the face of what has appeared to be a very well-orchestrated campaign), a protracted war of 'leaks' will do absolutely nobody - hungry media and salacious public aside - any favours whatsoever.
If I was advising the person who pled guilty. Stop. Take your lumps. Admit your terrible mistake with no caveats. Do not try and justify or rationalise. Do not drag this out through the court of public opinion. If you want sympathy, remember this is not about you. Do not try and attack the media - this will be counter-productive. Move on. Rebuild. By trying to continually spin this matter in your favour you damage yourself. Do not claim 'This was not me" in the same breath as a guilty plea. Most reasonable people will believe in the power of redemption if they think it is founded on a genuine belief or desire to make good on past mistakes. Prove to people that you understand all this and that you can change.
-
So I quote in good faith from this story:
Despite the guilty plea, National Network of Stopping Violence Services national manager Brian Gardner told NZPA there were aspects to Veitch's behaviour since the sentencing that suggested he did not fully accept responsibility for his actions.
Like many men he had treated for violence problems, Veitch's reaction appeared to be mixed, Mr Gardner said.
"Part of them will front up and take responsibility for the behaviour and then there's another bit of them that sort of minimises it or puts it outside of themselves," Mr Gardner said.
"They want to keep saying to people `I'm a good guy, I'm a good guy', and actually that's not the issue, about whether you're a good guy or not, the question is what are you going to do to make sure it doesn't happen again."
-
I was reading the new Listener today, and I saw an interview with Steve Coogan. Apparently he opens his UK shows with a song called "Everybody's a c*** sometimes.". I feel this appropriate to the topic at hand, and to the person who is aforementioned. Emphasis on the C word, really, and not the Everybody. As you were.
-
to continue to try and prosecute this matter via PR and media
And I quote from this story:
Meanwhile, Veitch was asked about speculation that his legal team had "some dirt on her" that led to the plea bargain.
Veitch replied: "I did some investigating ... I went and I dug and I went through records and I went through discovery and do you know what? I had a good time and I found stuff. So you are talking about dirt, (I am talking about) evidence."
Both parties have criticised media coverage of their case and Veitch yesterday threatened to sue some media.
-
By "c***" I presume you mean "c**k", right?
-
If that's true, it's disgusting - but it is nothing more than speculation right now
Maybe, but it was used by the defence, with Veitch's approval, apparently to his benefit. Admittedly, I do not know what the judge thought of it and I'm likely relying overmuch on my own experience in which some people who are emotional narcissists/sadists try to inflict as much pain as they can on other people (often those they have selected precisely because they are vulnerable) by any means at hand so as to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. It is entirely my own observation, but Veitch is a thug who cannot accept that he is responsible for anything and the moment he is faced with responsibility, overdramatises his own plight. It's a trick I've seen again and again at greater and lesser magnitude.
It is the pattern that I see that I despise. Abuse is so often compounded beyond the physical events and their direct consequences by the psychological self-justification that follows, and no court can deal with that.
Anyway, as I've implied, I'm not a judge nor on any jury, I'm not presented with the evidence and I'm not bound by their responsibilities and if I were, I would be far more temperate, I hope [grinding teeth again].
If you like, if you wish to furnish me with an escape clause, pretend that I'm dealing with the category of abuse, rather than Veitch himself.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.