Sue offers two different accounts of what happened “on or about the 7th
day of July 2009”. Which is true? Is either true? Sure, being kicked out of
bed for not having sex is not very nice. But it’s the very opposite of rape.
Of the 39 convictions for which Allan Titford has been sentenced to 24 years in prison, by far the most serious are three convictions for rape — supposedly in 1987, 2008 and 2009.
(The maximum penalty for rape, by the way, is 20 years.)
In the last post, you read medical evidence for why Titford was unlikely to have been ‘up’ for a sexual violation in 1987.
After his pain problem was fixed, he may have been — but now Sue’s own diary casts doubt on the 2009 rape as well.
Martin Doutré picks up where he left off in the last post…
MARTIN DOUTRÉ TO SUE TITFORD (COCHRANE) — CONTINUED
Also as previously stated, the only rape accusation that is accompanied by a date (on or about July 7, 2009, at Kaitaia) for which Allan was convicted, is very conspicuous by its absence in the detailed list of allegations against Allan that you sent to me – even though diary entries for both the 6th and 7th of July 2009 are covered.
6 July 2009, Allan was grumpy and yelling at everyone all night. He never talks to use like people only like animals. Tonight after arguing when we went to bed I would not have sex with him so he pushed me out of bed with his feet and told me to fuck off, and then said it doesn’t matter because I am useless in bed any way. So I slept in Alyssa’s room the night. 7
July 09 Allan came up to Alyssa’s bedroom kicked me in the legs and told me to get up and go to his room to talk. He told me to pack up and leave. Which would be ok if I have somewhere to go and an income to support all the kids.
Is this another one of those instances where you suddenly had a ‘flashback’ after deep consultation with the police, and the ‘repressed memory’ suddenly came to the fore, causing you to rush home and add it to your diary, years after the event?
Allan Titford has been stitched up by an orchestrated litany of lies and a smear campaign, in which Susan is merely one duped, complicit but useful participant in the greater ad hominem attack.
That’s two of the three rapes that may not have happened.
So, did the third?