Front page, Sunday Star-Times, 24 November 2013
Allan Titford’s partner of three years, Marcian Thomas, is just the latest of six friends of Titford to tell me that they suspect his wife and children have been bribed to lie about him.
In 2007, Titford’s father signed an affidavit saying that state fix-it man Ray Chappell offered him and his wife a $500,000 bribe to declare Allan insane, so the Crown could get control of his farm.
I have written evidence of his wife Sue lying, and of two of his children lying and stealing since coming under her sole care.
And so when the Sunday Star-Times rang me last Friday for my thoughts on Allan Titford’s 24 year incarceration, I was not about to reflexively disown him — as the 1law4all party shamefully did.
I told Adam Dudding three things about the sentence struck me as so fishy they smacked of a vendetta by the state.
Firstly, there was Judge Duncan Harvey’s triumphant proclamation, “It is time for the people of New Zealand to learn the truth”.
And what is “the truth” that the judge wants “the people of New Zealand” to “learn”?
He can only be referring to the matter for which Titford has long been a thorn in the side of the government.
He can only be implying that Titford’s guilt on a slew of personal charges somehow invalidates his slew of evidence that the Crown and Te Roroa heavied him off his Maunganui Bluff farm to satisfy a provably bogus tribal land claim.
As you will see in coming posts, despite the Star-Times attempts to put you off the scent, that evidence remains as damning as ever.
Second matter of concern was the extraordinary 24 year sentence that Judge Harvey handed down — almost as long as those imposed on double murderers Peter Howse (25 years) and Graeme Burton (26 years).
What motivated this Northland judge to give Titford one of the longest, if not the longest sentence in New Zealand history for offences in which no one died, largely on the evidence of a disgruntled ex-wife?
And thirdly, there was the cumulative nature of the sentence — when almost all multiple sentences are served concurrently. Allan’s partner Marcian tells me the judge actually started his calculations at 34 years!
(Both Garth McVicar and Mike Butler were so staggered when they read ’24 years’ they thought it was a misprint.)
The maximum penalty for rape is 20 years. More to the point, how do you get a conviction for a marital rape at all, never mind one that supposedly occurred “on a date uncertain” in 1987?
(Of the 58 charges against Titford, only one could be pinpointed to a specific date, 13 offences were said to have happened ‘on or about’ a particular date, and the remaining 44 “on a date uncertain” in a particular month, half-year, year or decade between June 1987 and July 2009.)
44 of 58 alleged offences could not be pinpointed to within a month
So when reporter Adam Dudding rang, my mind immediately turned to the two long meetings I’d had with a surprisingly mild-mannered Allan Titford, his loving and totally supportive partner of three years Marcian, and their happy little son Leo, who clearly loved his dad.
It turned again to the tonnage of evidence I’d seen of state evidence-tampering and other harassment — enough to fill the 598 page book Robbery by Deceit by Titford and Ross Baker.
I thought of all the fine and honest people like Ross, Martin Doutre and Mykeljon Winckel who’ve been demonised along with Allan for shining the light on the state’s and tribe’s dirty tricks.
I thought of the chilling comment allegedly made by Ray Chappell to Allan that “we own the media and can manipulate public perceptions of you” and that “It doesn’t matter how good your case is or how much evidence you find,
because we own the judges”.
I could hear my friends’ warnings that by giving Allan the benefit of the doubt I’d be putting my head in the media noose and adding my name to the list of media-annointed ‘conspiracy theorists’. (As if all conspiracies must, by definition, be false.)
Then I decided I was not going to let a man rot in prison, a woman live without her man, and a boy grow up without his father, while there remained the real possibility that he was being punished for proving the state corrupt.
The above front page story was the result.
Predictably, it leaves out my comment to the reporter that “if Allan actually did these things then he deserves everything that’s coming to him.” That, of course, would make me look too fair-minded.
Allan’s partner Marcian describes my assessment of Allan as a big pussycat as absolutely accurate. She says they have their barneys like any couple, but she’s never had any cause to fear that Allan might lift a finger against her, nor has he.
(A remarkable turnaround from the supposedly violent monster who so terrorised his previous family.)
Allan Titford: 24 years for proving the state corrupt?
Why did his legal aid lawyer not call a single witness?
So why was Allan Titford found guilty?
Marcian tells me that Allan’s legal aid lawyer was woefully underprepared, and did not call a single witness, despite having six pages of names.
The aforementioned vindictive judge even thanked him for going so lightly on Sue and the children.
According to Marcian, when the verdicts were read out, four of the five women on the jury were in tears, and one man was later overheard as saying he never wanted to serve on a jury again.
There is much more to be told in the Allan Titford story.