Allan Titford, Sue Titford (Cochrane)

Doctor’s letter casts doubt on 1987 Titford rape

Allan Titford - Doctor's letterLetter from Allan Titford’s doctor saying Titford found
sex painful at the time his wife says he raped her.

Titford family friend Martin Doutré says that if Allan had had a fair trial, this doctor’s letter saying he found sex painful in the first six years of his marriage would have been presented.

So would various cards from Sue to Allan that make it hard to believe her claim that Allan abused her for the whole 22 years.


Hi Susan,

It’s certainly true that after I received your list of accusations against Allan in September 2009 I was astounded, and wrote back a sympathetic response accordingly.

On the surface of it, I had to initially accept you at your word and respond with appropriate sensitivity. It was the same case for Ross Baker and many others.

But then some serious cracks started to appear in the plasterwork.

There are a number of things that you’ve very conveniently left out of your story, which should have been raised and discussed fully in a court of law.

One of these relates to the alleged rape charges, and Allan’s ability or desire to commit that kind of act.

Now, I know that this subject matter constitutes a veritable no-mans-land, where no bloke is allowed to venture with an opinion, or have any kind of dissenting point of view.

In the standard list of accusations that a man is obliged to wear in a matrimonial dispute, this one invariably sits near the top.

Under the very hazy definition of what now constitutes marital rape (i.e. “I didn’t want it that night – but let it happen against my will”, most married men have been ‘raped’ by their wives – including Allan Titford.

So, for the elucidation of the jury, perhaps you should have mentioned:

(1) You were unable to conceive by any natural means, although you strongly desired children, and suffered disappointment in this regard for about the first 5 years of your marriage.

(2) You attended or consulted the Natural Family Planning clinic in an effort to optimise your chances of conception, which, of course, meant that Allan had to stand at the ready to perform his duty when you were at peak fertility.

(3) But, as you well know, Allan had a serious problem with his ‘man-gear’ due to a not-uncommon physical condition that plagues a fair percentage of men.

It’s called ‘Frenulum breve’and anybody interested in researching the condition can look it up on the Internet.

It means that once the penis is expanded and subjected to sexual activity, a rupture and bleeding can easily occur, accompanied by intense pain and ongoing discomfort.

Once such a tear happens to the man-gear, no further sexual activity is possible until the torn tissue fully heals.

Also, those unfortunate men suffering from this condition of extreme sexual pain (dyspareunia) must be forever vigilant to ensure the ruptured region is cleansed daily.

The stringent regime entails the application of medicated creams to forestall the onset of disease, leading to further painful complications.

(4) Despite the fact that Allan’s Catholic faith forbade the use of fertility drugs as an aid to conception, you went to Dr. Langley of Dargaville and were prescribed them.

This led to your first pregnancy.

(5) Dr Langley gave you a large batch of these drugs, and all of the pregnancies, it seems, were the result of taking fertility drugs.

(6) Shortly after Alyssa was born, and while you were carrying James, Allan was obliged to see Dr. Kevin J McKerrow of the Artemis Centre, 2 Pupuke Rd., Takapuna, regarding the on-going painful condition of his man-gear.

Dr Kevin McKerrow wrote the following to Dr Spencer Craft of the Red Beach Family Medical Centre on April 2nd 1993:

“Thank you for referring this gentleman who is uncircumcised.

He has been married for the last six years, and on erections he has a painful penis. The B.I.D use of Nizoral cream has controlled the problem.

On examination, there was superficial erosion of the corona most consistent with that of candidia balanitis. The other condition to be considered would be that of lichen sclerosus et atrophicus.”

After discussing how to best proceed, Dr McKerrow further wrote:

“I have commenced him on a course of Itraconazole 200mg daily and if the problem persists despite this, then I feel that circumcision should be considered.”

Indeed, the painful problem did persist and worsened, beyond the birth of the fourth child, Shiane, and by 1998 Allan had no other recourse but to have the circumcision operation, which was undertaken at Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.

For Allan, ‘rising to the occasion’ to service a wife who was obsessed with breeding, was, for the most part, a less than satisfying experience and was often excruciating, as well as fraught with consequent, on-going pain.

With regards to this persistent problem, Allan confided in a number of friends, including his equally dispossessed (due to the fraudulent rulings of the Waitangi Tribunal) farmer, Don Harrison.

After the operation in Tasmania, Allan’s mother, who was a nurse, commented that he should have had the condition rectified years ago.

In addition to all this, you [Susan] accused Allan of rape on a day uncertain in the months of September and December 1987 at Dargaville.

But then, strangely, you gave Allan a very mushy Valentine’s card in 1993, followed by an Anniversary Achievement Award dated the 20th of June 1993.

So, we’re now led to believe that this “raped” and “beaten” wife who is “terrified” of the brute for whose lecherous gratification she is reduced to the lowly role of a sex-slave – and who she (now-belatedly) claims burnt down the family home and left her homeless in 1992 – sends the following mushy card to him in 1993:

Allan Titford - Sue's Matrimonial award for Allan

The cover panel for this award reads:

This is but one of several such endearing cards that Susan gave Allan.

Allan Titford - Sue's anniversary card for Allan 1988

Sue tells Allan she is “so happy to have you as my husband”
on their anniversary in 1988.
Allan Titford - charges - 1987 rape

Sue told the police Allan raped her some time in late 1987.

From a woman’s perspective, Marcian comments:

‘Would a battered wife really go to this trouble? I don’t think so.

You would make an excuse of, “Oh is it our anniversary? Sorry, I forgot all about it – what with being mother of a 15 month old & 8 months pregnant with a second child … Sorry dear.”

No, Susan makes an effort.’

Martin Doutré

29 thoughts on “Doctor’s letter casts doubt on 1987 Titford rape

  1. There seems to be one contradiction after another. Nothing fits with these rape allegations. It’s quite beyond me how he was convicted on them. Obviously the Jury did not hear all the evidence.

    When will he know if his appeal is successful? I hope it is sooner rather than later.

  2. The expert information contradicts your musing. The expert information says a woman will be over the top with affection, especially during a honeymoon period ( a period where her abuser is feeling remorse) in an effort to keep things sweet. The letter would not have been produced as it does not cast doubt on the rape – any of them

  3. Just for your information this evidence was at court with the other cards. Allan had his lawyer get the above card handed to me in the break after being questioned about the other ones. Once the break was over his lawyer asked to get all the cards put as an exhibit number without questioning me about the above card. But once they said they had finished questioning me I asked the Judge if I could explain the above card and he was surprised it had been snuck to me during the break and then not questioned about it. My evidence on the cards helped prove his word on other stuff. Then his comment he made himself in Court that he’ll produce more kids did not go down with the jury very well after his lawyer questioning me about him not supposedly being to function properly. Then what didn’t help him either was the fact that he said he cant function any more but now has another baby. I will not comment on anything else on this site or even read it any more as it seems to be just a site to try and make me look like the bad person because it does not benefit the anti treaty campaign.

    1. Sue, what do you mean, “My evidence on the cards helped prove his word on other stuff?” What was your evidence on the cards?

      I gather he began to “function” better after he had the remedial surgery recommended by the doctor.

      As I’ve said before, the rights and wrongs of Allan’s personal case do not affect the core issue of the forced farm sale. On another post you agreed that the research you and Allan did on that was correct.

      So you both agree on the issue which concerns us most.

      But I’m also concerned that a man may have been wrongly imprisoned for 24 years because the state is sore at him for exposing their corruption. So when evidence is sent to me to support that, I post it.

      I’m also happy to allow you to present any evidence of your own. You’re welcome to say whatever you wish to say, and I’m sure readers will appreciate being able to read both sides of the story, and make up their own minds.

      If you exercise your perfect right not to comment further, they will, of course, draw their own conclusions from that as well.

    2. Hi Susan,

      John Ansell responded to one of your accusations about Allan tampering with official documents and asked you for clarification.

      He said:

      ‘You talk about Allan “adding notes to certain letters from the Tasmanian lawyer”.

      I’m told that Allan made an amendment to the farm sale agreement in 1995. (He took a photo of that amendment, though the one I’ve seen is quite blurry and hard to tell the date.)

      I’m told the Crown deleted that amendment when the agreement was presented for the signature of the Commissioner of Crown Lands.

      That would be evidence of Crown corruption.’

      Are you saying that might not be true?’

      To which you [Susan] responded:

      ‘Yes he added bits to the documents afterwards to make out the Crown had missed bits out. Also including adding notes to certain letters from the Tasmanian Lawyer.’

      Susan, it seems to me you’ve been badly caught out here telling a very big porky and it’s a lie that, undoubtedly, exposes who your real handlers truly are behind the scenes … Crown Law!

      This seems to be further corroborated by your choice of words in your latest post on this website:

      You state:

      ‘I will not comment on anything else on this site or even read it any more as it seems to be just a site to try and make me look like the bad person because it does not benefit the anti treaty campaign.’

      Wow! … What a strange statement for you to make.

      Susan, you, as much as any of the rest of us, know that Allan, Ross, myself and many other research confederates always were and remain VERY PRO-TREATY and have never been “anti-treaty” for so much as an instant.

      We have only ever opposed the REINVENTED-TREATY … that is … the grievance-industry distortion of TE TIRITI O WAITANGI, as concocted after 1975, for the purpose of plundering most New Zealanders and reducing them to the status of second-class citizens.

      The fact that you would use such a propaganda-laced label indicates to me that you’ve probably got a stupid and clumsy PR handler helping to compose your / their politically-expedient responses.

      So, for the benefit of those unacquainted with the very important accusation of: “Allan Titford allegedly falsifying documents in an effort to defraud the Crown”, here is the true sequence of events related to the forced, illegal acquisition of the Titford farm at Maunganui Bluff.

      Chronology of events:

      (1). September 1994, the Crown tries to buy Titford’s farm for well below its true value and Allan refuses the stingy, ridiculous offer.

      Crown henchman, Ray Chappell, accompanied by Pita Parone, approach the Titford parents and offer them $500,000 if they will declare Allan insane.

      (2). On December 6th 1995 the Crown extends its 1994 offer.
      Allan, with huge mounting bank-interest and other debts ($2.5-million), etc., cannot hold out any longer, as his parent’s (the guarantors of his farm purchase) own farm is facing a severe threat of foreclosure.

      “Under duress”, Allan decides to proceed.

      (3). On December 11th 1995 the sale documents are brought to Allan and Susan Titford in Australia by the NZ Crown’s appointed representative, Tasmanian lawyer / Notary Public, Sam Samec, for final signing.

      Allan quickly sees that this is an altogether new, much more stingy, screw-you-down agreement and is not the 1994 one seen earlier by him or his New Zealand based lawyer, Clive Jackson.

      (4). Allan dictates and has Susan write a lengthy amendment on page 11 of the sale document, opposing the new, treacherous, proposal.

      Amongst many other things he states:

      ‘On the Deed the vendor accepts the cover, first page and signing page only. All other pages left un-initialled are totally refuted by the vendor.’

      This refutation meant that Allan rejected the proposal until the conditions he’d laid out were met.

      He then signed his comments on pg. 11 of the “yet-to-be finalised” or “still-under-negotiation” sale agreement and had the Crown’s representative, Sam Samec, witness the same.

      (5). Allan Titford took a photo of what he’d had Susan write on page 11, as proof of what he’d dictated as his “yet-to-be-resolved” terms or conditions.

      Samec faxed the wad of documents back to New Zealand and later sent the hard-copy document originals by snail mail.

      Allan was not supplied with any copies by Samec on the day, although Samec had a second, clean and unsigned set in his possession.

      (6). Now the story gets very murky, as, with the receipt of the documents back in New Zealand the sale was, surprisingly, immediately declared a done-deal and complete by Crown Law, without any need for further negotiation.

      A mentally and emotionally exhausted Allan was astonished by this premature, pre-emptive move, but Crown Law refused to send him a copy of the sale agreement he’d, supposedly, fully signed off.

      Similarly, Allan’s lawyer, Clive Jackson, was not allowed the copy he’d applied for either.

      The law firm, Phillips – Fox, acting for the Crown, wrote the following to Atkinson – Jackson, Solicitors:

      ‘Thank you for your letter of 5 February 1996. As the terms of the documentation signed are confidential, we are not in a position to forward you a copy of the terms … Yours faithfully, Rachel Taylor.’

      Despite various attempts over the years, neither Allan Titford nor Ross Baker could ever get a copy of this sale agreement.

      (7). On the 12th of October 2006, Allan, Ross and I went to the Ministry of Justice in Wellington and met with Esther King.

      Formal application was made for release of Allan’s 1995 deed of sale, which had not been seen by anyone, outside of government officials, in the 11 intervening years.

      Thereafter, in, November 2006, a copy of all the pages, allegedly representing the deed of sale signed by Allan in December 1995, finally became available.

      Allan immediately expressed to us that the modifications and conditions he had added in 1995 were missing and that new pages had been substituted in to replace his witnessed amendments.

      This initiated a concerted research-effort by Ross Baker to locate the 3 missing original pages.

      Amongst many other things, Ross found inconsistencies in such things as the fax marks appearing on some pages as opposed to others lacking them.

      Three pages in the file, represented as being authentic, were obviously orphan pages, not associated with the original batch and not signed off by Allan Titford and Sam Samec as they should have been.

      Ross hounded the Ministry of Justice to send the authentic file from the Crown Law archives, but they only sent various (what were termed) “versions”.

      Ross correctly argued that there are no “versions” to a deed of sale, just the solitary, valid original.

      Crown Law was repeatedly challenged to come up with the goods, but couldn’t, as they’d painted themselves into a corner in 1995, from which there was no escape by any honest or overt means.

      They became so irritated by Ross Baker’s badgering through the Ombudsman (under an Official Information request), Helen Clark, as well as through various Members of Parliament or officials, that they refused to communicate any further with him, intimating harassment.

      They’d really been caught-short or flat-footed and the now patently obvious 1995 tampering with the sale documents by the likes of Helen Aikman (?), Mary Anne Thompson … also known as scary-Mary when convicted of fraud in 2008 (?), Paul James (?), etc., in order to rush through the yet-unresolved agreement, was highly embarrassing to them.

      For a fuller, blow-by-blow account, go to the One New Zealand Foundation website.


      So, there it stood until Allan was arrested in November 2010.

      (8). When someone is arrested and slapped with a list of charges, pending trial, the police are obliged to provide “Full Disclosure”.

      This entails handing over all their files on the individual facing conviction, so that the accused can mount a defence.

      In Allan Titford’s case, the police files were provided in a large batch shortly after his arrest, followed by an additional, smaller batch in 2012.

      In the batch mailed to Allan by Detective Eddie Evans in 2012 were the 3 MISSING PAGES from the 1995 sale agreement and these had been in police possession, presumably, since early 1996 or so.

      However, this doesn’t gel with your [Susan’s] more recent account of events, wherein you allege that Allan stood over you late into the night in about mid-June 2007 and forced you to write out a fake page 11 text on a clean, photocopy of the so-called “real” page 11 from the sale agreement.

      According to what, since the break-up in 2009, you’ve transmitted publicly, this was only done by Allan to extort further money, under false pretences, out of the Crown, by alleging they’d botched the sale agreement in 1995 and needed to honour the overlooked or left-out pre-sale conditions.

      (9). The old adage states: Follow the money – who gains?

      Well, certainly not you Susan, unless certain enticements have been offered by a very interested 3rd party for your cooperation on the matter.

      So, let’s try to guess who would come up “smelling like a rose” if this accusation against Allan could be made to stick.

      Certainly not Allan, as Crown Law would know empirically what documentation they received in 1995 and would laugh him off the stage; maybe even prosecute him for attempted fraud.

      (10). In fact, the foremost body to benefit would be Crown Law itself. In one fell swoop they could:

      • Extricate the 1995 Crown Law players from the proverbial poo and side-step any accusations of tampering or foul-play within the ranks, by Helen Aikman, Mary Anne Thompson or Paul James, etc., or whoever.

      • They could avoid having to revisit the 1995 sale due to improper conduct, as they’d be obliged to do under the 1948 Land Act or 1952 Land Transfer Act.

      • Crown Law could avoid criminal prosecution for misleading parliament, in claiming that all criteria for a legal sale had been satisfied in 1995.

      • The highly embarrassed authorities could, instead, turn the tables on Allan Titford and label him the actual fraudster and opportunist in all of this drama.

      • The Te Roroa iwi could deride and slander him publicly, feigning howling, righteous indignation to divert public attention away from the fact that he had proved, by historical documentation, that their land claim was transparent fraud.

      • The Waitangi Tribunal would dearly love to punish him for exposing their corruption in rewriting NZ history to win false claims for Maori.

      • The bought-off government historians, caught out by Allan and shown up to have deliberately doctored history to win cases for paying clients of the Waitangi Tribunal, could now duck away and hide, while public attention was focused solely on Titford’s alleged debauchery.

      • Corrupt, former ministers of the Crown that Allan had flushed out into the open and exposed, could now claim vindication for their actions, in light of the fact that it was always Allan Titford, and not any of them, who was the true rogue

      • Allan Titford pissed-off a lot of highly placed and influential people … hence the “utu” or “vendetta” of 24-years in the slammer, and the “muru” (plunder) of his assets as a reward for those proving to be cooperative and very helpful in setting him up for his “fall from grace”.

      The blurry photo of page 11 of the 1995 sale agreement and the old paper copy of pg. 11 from the (circa 1996) police files are a “match”.

      These were not produced, as Susan alleges, in about mid-June 2007, but originated about 12-years earlier.

      This is further proven by the fact that Ross Baker had the blurry photo film analysed by Kodak, who confirmed that it was circa 1995 film and that the blurring was largely due to the film not being developed until 2007, by which time the emulsion had deteriorated.

      To see an animated display of Allan Titford’s, blurry 1995 image, overlaying and perfectly matching the true, original, page 11 supplied by Detective Eddie Evans from the police disclosure file, go to:

      1. Martin, that is excellent. Is there really nowhere or no-one of importance you can go to with all this information. Is everyone in on the corruption? Surely, even if Allan Titford is in prison, this case about the fraudulent taking of his land can be fought on his behalf. I certainly hope so.

        I’m very surprised that Sue doesn’t come out and confirm what you have said. She must know it is true. Is there an ulterior motive for her not doing so? One has to think there must be.

        Ideally an excellent lawyer will pick this up but I suppose they know their career as far as anything to do with the huge ‘Maori grievance industry’ would be over if they even looked like touching it.

        Confession, it’s obvious that I didn’t express myself fully when I said the rape case against Allan Titford is not proven. I accept that under our current law it has been proven, but what I was trying to say (not very clearly obviously) was that there is something very wrong with our Justice system and the fact that a Jury found him guilty, doesn’t prove he is guilty, in my view, because our Juries have made so many past errors of judgement. They have been proved wrong in so many cases and even after two trials in at least a couple of cases. That’s what I was getting at. So I’m far from convinced they got it right in this case.

      2. Hi Helen,
        With regards to this stupid accusation, by Susan, that Allan, in mid-2007 falsified the 1995 sale agreement by taking a clean copy of the “real” page 11 and forced her to write a swag of counterfeit amendments, in an effort to defraud the Crown 12-years after the event, you state:

        ‘Is everyone in on the corruption? Surely, even if Allan Titford is in prison, this case about the fraudulent taking of his land can be fought on his behalf. I certainly hope so.

        I’m very surprised that Sue doesn’t come out and confirm what you have said. She must know it is true. Is there an ulterior motive for her not doing so?

        One has to think there must be.’

        Let’s think about this logically:

        Say, last year you bought a car from the local dealership and have been driving around in it for many months, but now decide it’s not what you really want.

        So, you take your old purchase agreement and write some sentences on there, then claim that the dealership supplied a car with a 1.5 litre motor and not the 2 litre one with a turbo, as specified on your newly doctored sale form.

        In addition, it’s a drab green, not the iridescent blue one you ordered and, moreover, doesn’t have all the fancy extras or “bling” features you specified and paid for.

        So, what are your chances? … Somewhere between none and zilch.

        After the sales manager stops laughing, you’re probably going to get a polite but firm letter, sympathetically affirming your insanity or developing dementia.

        Why? … Because the company has perfect records documenting your transaction right down to the last nut and bolt.

        So, if Allan Titford tried the same stunt on Crown Law 12-years after the event, knowing full-well that they had in their possession all of the authentic, signed-off sales documents, how in his wildest imagination could he ever think he had a snowball’s chance in hell of conning them?

        But this scenario is totally different, as Allan knew exactly what he had signed or what conditions he’d imposed pre-sale in 1995 and, in this case, it was Crown Law that had been badly caught out perpetrating a fraud.

        This had been fully exposed by Ross Baker, who, like a tenacious and relentless little fox terrier hunting a rat, had cornered Crown Law to the extent that they had no escape route … unless they were very, very cunning and extra clever.

        Somehow, by some miraculous means, Crown Law had to prove there had been no impropriety in their dealings when processing the sale agreement in 1995.

        This meant that they had to prove the impossible … that the documents they’d trotted out, belatedly, in 2006 and represented as the “one & only” sale agreement, were, against all evidence to the contrary, the real McCoy.

        It was going to take an Einstein to come up with a solution!

        But it seems that some self-appointed genius, with an IQ ten points lower than Mickey Mouse, came up with a stupid formula and the rest of the imbeciles in the office decided to go along with it.

        Why not cut a deal with, “a woman scorned” to get her to turn State’s evidence on that bastard who’d had the temerity to run off with “tarts” after she’d dumped him?

        Didn’t that philandering rotter know he was supposed to take a vow of celibacy and remain forever single, thereafter, till his dying day?

        How dare he seek happiness in the arms of another … “I’ll make him pay dearly for this!”*

        And as overly melodramatic as all that might sound, all the evidence would suggest that this is exactly what happened and a thorough criminal investigation needs to be done to flush out the players.

        Susan even goes so far, in embellishing her utterly illogical tale, as to attempt to discount the “blurry photo” evidence, by saying that Allan deliberately used an old camera with “old film” in it and waited till they were back in Australia in 2007 to take the picture of his counterfeit page 11 (for authenticity ??? … Maybe Aussie sunshine is different from NZ sunshine and the picture had to look like it was taken in Australia?).

        As Alice in Wonderland would have said, “It gets curiouser and curiouser …”

        In Gene Desmond Hanham’s affidavit dated 2/2/11 he states:

        ‘(9) i rember [sic] sitting around the table with Susan Cochrane, Ulanda, my self & James & Susan was telling us that she doesn’t care if she has to lie but she’s going to some how make sure that Allan (Titford) get’s locked up so she get’s all the land & money.’

      3. Everything you say makes complete sense, Martin. So this leads me to my question as to whether or not there is anyone in authority that can be approached with all the ‘evidence’ you have to fight Allan Titford’s claim re his farm? Surely there is someone who wouldn’t be involved in the cover-up or whatever has occurred that could be consulted.

        It’s very evident from the evidence you have provided that something very fraudulent has gone on and it must not be left there for them to get away with it. It all sounds like something out of a dramatic novel and not reality. Is this country really so corrupt – or at least the people who have overseen this fiasco?

        As Sue was there and knows full well what really occurred, surely if she has a modicum of decency and honesty she will come out and confirm it all, otherwise how will she live with herself, unless she is totally devoid of all feeling. I couldn’t do this to my worst enemy.

  4. Seeing you appear to be an ‘expert’ in these matters, Confession, what do you have to say about the extreme pain he would have endured during such ‘circumstances’. Would a person with his disturbing disability even want to go there, let alone initiate it in the first place?

  5. Correct me if I’m wrong, Sue, but didn’t he have a circumcision at some stage – possibly before he had another baby?

    I for one am most certainly not trying to make you out to be a bad person. I’m just going by the evidence which is coming out bit by bit and making everything look more and more decidedly ‘dodgy’. At first I was inclined to believe what you said but each piece that comes out makes me feel an enormous wrong has been done to Allan.

    It’s the length of his sentence which makes me suspicious because all the cases I’m reading about since his sentencing, are receiving nowhere near as long as a 24 year sentence and these ones involve a murder, whereas no-one died in Allan’s case. It’s all quite extraordinary to put it mildly.

    You have said all the research is correct with regard to him being wrongfully dispossessed of his land so I’m sure you will be on his side about this part of things.

    1. The rapes proven were in 87 were they not,. This letter is dated 93. When were the other proven rapes Helen? After the circumcision. The letter states a prescription was used and assisted him. He also had 7 children. The letter wont help him. Sue, you are the proven victim here. You absolutely shouldn’t spend time defending yourself. You are correct the only common theme with treaty issues would be that now this group is looking fir a martyr

      1. The first of the three alleged/proven rapes was in late 1987, in the first year of Allan and Sue’s marriage, and shortly before Sue gave Allan the anniversary card.

        The 1993 letter says Allan found sex painful for the first six years of their marriage, from 1987 to 1993.

        My next post will offer different evidence that casts doubt on the third ‘rape’ in 2009.

  6. Mike Butler and others have researched the Titford saga of missing crucial Local Authority documents and deliberate police inaction. I remember the incidents of maori bullying and intimidation as reported in newspapers at the time, where police kept well out of the way, and in some cases actually witnessed the unlawful activity.

    As in the instances of Arthur Allan Thomas’s trials, where the hell were the defence lawyers? Were they paid off and/or intimidated as well?

    Alan Titford has now been jailed for twenty-four years, and as in the Russian state, is unlikely to ever be parolled earlier.

    New Zealanders like to believe that there is virtually no corruption in this country. They delude themselves. As long as the All Blacks are winning, everything is sweet.

  7. A very easy way to resolve your concerns, instead of badgering and baiting Sue would be for Titford to supply his copy of the court transcript. You could pick it up next time you visit. Then you have the whole thing in front of you. Each charge would be broken down exhibits will be attached in photos. You could spend the next few months going through it. You could then chronicle all your findings. Then start a fundraiser, get Titford a lawyer if your choice and start the appeal process.

    1. I agree with you, Confession. I’m trying to get a transcript.

      If I get a copy and it seems to me that some or all of the charges have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, I will give that as my opinion, for what it’s worth.

      Obviously I won’t have had the benefit of looking the witnesses
      in the eye or judging their body language, but a transcript of their words will provide some guide at least.

      There are rumours that witnesses
      on both sides have been bribed to write affidavits, so it will be
      interesting to see whether this issue was tested in court.

      Sue says other witnesses can testify for her, and Allan has many who weren’t called, so a retrial or appeal would, I imagine, be most revealing.

      I just hope Allan can get a lawyer who can give him a fair defence. With the full force of the state
      against him, that would seem crucial.

  8. The rapes are proven, John. Not alleged. Alleged is for an act unproven in a court of law. He is not an alleged fraudster, rapist, arsonist, or child abuser. He is convicted of all of these crimes. On multiple counts. Which also explains the sentence. Multiple counts over a very long period of time equates to a very long sentence. I would be interested in finding out more about the fraud charges and what they relate too.

    1. No, Confession, they are not proven. The jury bought it so therefore he was found guilty but in view of other high profile cases with two trials in some cases, where they were found guilty at both only later fto be ound not to be so, can we trust our jury system? I think not.

      Our justice system is very faulty as it is the adversarial system which is more about how clever the lawyers are. We badly need to change to the inquisitorial system which is more interested in getting to the truth.

      Personally I don’t think you can prove marital rape, unless a person was visibly damaged. Only two people know what happened, unless family members witnessed it but I wouldn’t think that should be admissible, as evidence could be slanted towards the favoured parent, if the family was divisive.

      However, overall, my main concern is the fact that Allan has been dispossessed of his property. As the rape allegations are probably responsible for the inordinately long sentence, we are discussing them, when really they are otherwise irrelevant to the fraudulent loss of his land.

  9. The jury brought it – means convicted and proven. Titford was brought to justice in a court of law, not in the forum of treatygate.

    1. You didn’t read what I said, Confession. Just because a Jury bought it, doesn’t make it fact. I gave ‘for instances’ of where the Jury got it wrong even after 2 trials in at least a couple of cases I know of.

      I would say there are many out there who have been convicted when they are in fact innocent and. equally. many who should have been convicted but weren’t. The Jury system is very faulty and needs to be changed.

      However, the rape allegations are irrelevant to the main issue which is the fraudulent taking of Allan Titford’s land. The only reason we are discussing them is because of the huge sentence he has received because of them. The sentence must be an all-time record for the charges he faced. Murderers don’t seem to receive that long.

  10. Helen he was convicted on 38 different charges. 3 of them rape. Potentially he could have got 20 years for each rape charge. The child abuse charges, fraud and also arson means his sentence was always going to be huge if convicted. Until there is some resolution if he appeals he is a convicted sex offender proven in a court of law

    1. That’s another fishy thing about this case: when standard practice is to make sentences concurrent (bundled into the sentence for the worst crime – e.g. 20 years in this case), why were Allan Titford’s made cumulative?

      Why, with so little evidence and so little representation, did he get put away for almost as long as double murderer Graham Burton?

      That, I think, is worth looking into.

      You are absolutely right, Confession, that he is a convicted rapist, arsonist, fraudster, basher and lord knows what else.

      The question is: did he get a fair trial from a government that has much to gain by silencing him?

  11. I have stopped replying to this site because you all make out I made it all up. The fact is I know the truth I was there. Were any of you in the bedroom at the time. There is no point in me trying to explain anything to any of you as you just simply wont believe it. I have tried to tell Ross and Martin as they have stuff on their websites that is false but if they dont want to correct it then I myself wonder if they can keep lies on their sites what else is lies.

    1. My question, Sue, is: were you in the bedroom at the time of this or any other rape?

      Take the one you say happened in 2009.

      The police charge sheet says that Allan raped you around 7 July 2009.

      And yet your own diary of recollections that you sent to the police says that Allan pushed you out of bed on 6 July 2009 for not having sex with him.

      That was your only mention of sex ‘around 7 July 2009’.

      Being pushed out of bed is the complete opposite of being raped.

      How do you account for the contradiction?

      Of course you’re welcome to ignore the question. But that will just convince readers that you’re not telling the truth.

      And if you’re not telling the truth about one rape, what are we to think about the others?

      Sue, there may be a simple explanation. I invite you to supply it.

      1. my dairy entries were always just briefs just enough for me to know what they meant cause if Allan ever found my diaries and everything was in detail then God knows what would have happened. Just before I left he found out I had diaries and started to read through one which happened to be the one around the signing of the government deeds. He made me make alterations to what I had written and then told Ross this is what happened cause Sue wrote it in her diary. Which was a lie. I was then scared he would read the rest of the diaries and it was not long after that we left. I wanted to tell Ross about him altering the deed when we were staying with Ross but if Ross then mentioned it to Allan it was me that was living with him and I was too scared. But you and your readers can judge me as much as you want. I know what happened you dont.

  12. Sue did the jury get to read all your diary entries???
    that must have taken ages i cant understand how 53 charges were heard in such a short time 4 weeks aprox???

    1. when we were interview by the detectives the whole interview was recorded and these recordings were played in the trial. Parts of my diaries were questioned as I mentioned that they were only brief notes in case Allan found my diaries.

  13. I have read the diary entries you made Susan.

    There was no discretion used by you.

    No person in a violent relationship would keep a record of abuse in the manor in which you say you did, that would have been a very dangerous and incredibly stupid thing to do.

    For twenty something years and in multiple houses you managed to keep secret diaries hidden not only from your husband but also 7 children.

    That is some magic trick, you must have nerves of steel to pull that one off.

    It begs the question, where was this hiding place ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s