Allan Titford, Martin Doutre, Sue Titford (Cochrane)

Doutré: boat Sue says Allan axed had steel hull!

Allan Titford - Helene 1 - 4 Amongst the avalanche of lies told by Susan Titford is this big porky about Allan Titford sinking his own fishing boat.

By Martin Doutré

(Not John Ansell. If anyone knows how to get WordPress to stop inserting the blog owner’s name automatically, let’s know.)

Allan Titford - press story - ex-wife says Titford sank boat for insurance
Susan (née Cochrane) Titford putting the boot in once again in order to show the public what an absolutely dastardly fellow Allan was.

This time she’s accusing him of sinking his own fishing boat to defraud an insurance company and gain a substantial pecuniary advantage or financial windfall accordingly.

This scenario, dreamt up by Susan and/or her very naive handlers in Crown Law, the police or otherwise, then foisted onto an unsuspecting public by the presstitutes, is particularly stupid for the following reasons:

These imbeciles obviously assumed that the Helene 1 fishing boat was of wooden hull construction, capable of being holed by an axe, when, in fact, it had an ALL-STEEL, heavy plate hull.

The Helene 1 was capable of withstanding very rough seas without crippling damage, as well as severe impacts from hidden shoals if run aground in the shallows.

Such is the nature of marine steel construction, which can withstand extremely heavy punishment.

Allan Titford vehemently denies that he ever told Susan any such thing and, moreover, anyone who knows Allan well also knows, emphatically, how guarded and protective he is of his stuff.

It would be totally out of character for him to destroy his own fishing boat or house (or any other of his machines, plant and hard-won assets for that matter).

So, let’s explore the logistics of Allan Titford pulling-off this ridiculous stunt of deliberately sinking his own fishing boat.

Even if Allan Titford could actually get at a section of the inner hull with an axe and hit it with the required heavy blows (which he couldn’t), it’s certain he’d have been totally exhausted from the physical effort long before making any kind of dent or impression in the heavy steel plate.

The headroom down in the hold of the Helene 1 was only about 4’ (1.2 metres), so the idiot with the axe would have to swing it in a stooped or kneeling position, thus restricting the force of the blow.

But there’s another major problem.

The Helene 1 could act as a fueler for other fishing boats and had huge fuel-carrying capacity.

The entire length of the boat, port & starboard sides, stem-to-stern, was lined with fuel tanks, which blocked access to the hull.

This means that the idiot with the axe would first have to smash his way through the fuel tanks and end up swimming in diesel up to his belly button, before even being able to get access to the actual hull surface itself.

Any such bloody-minded and determined idiot would be quickly asphyxiated by diesel fumes.

Then there’s also the problem of the other crew members, whose lives were to be placed in great jeopardy by this moronic sabotage-attempt, 40-miles off the coast of Westport.

Isn’t it mildly possible that the others would have detected the hour-upon-hour smashing reverberations of their mad, axe wielding skipper, pounding away relentlessly a few feet below them under the deck?

Wouldn’t one of them have lifted the hatch to ask what was going on, then realised their insane skipper was trying to send the boat and them down to Davy Jones’ locker?

A bit of simple investigative journalism by the media-whores who wrote the above article, along the lines of contacting year-1969 ship builder of the Helene 1 in Timaru, would have put-paid to this stupid accusation very quickly.

Allan Titford - Helene 1 - 1

The 46-feet long Helene 1 in dry dock being painted with red-lead antifouling paint to protect the all-steel hull. On the pilot house, vertical streaks of rust staining have left a mark over the central region of the name Helene 1.  

Allan Titford - Helene 1 - 2

The Helene 1 was a handsome and sturdy boat that Allan Titford was, understandably, both proud to skipper and own. He was also doing quite well financially with his fishing venture.  

Loss of the boat was a major financial setback for Allan, as the long-awaited insurance pay-out was insufficient to buy a replacement boat anywhere near as large as the Helene 1 and, because the new boat was considerably shorter, Allan’s valuable fishing quota was cut drastically.

Allan Titford - Helene 1 - 3
Another photo of the antifouling preservation work being done in dry dock.

This marine accident was due to a badly repaired, out of line and unbalanced propeller shaft, done by Wanganui based marine engineers.

Although the job was passed by the marine surveyor and signed off, there was, after the new shaft was fitted, a severe vibration through the boat when it was underway.

This constant vibration is thought to have eventually caused metal fatigue at the point where the propeller shaft passed through the hull from the engine room, thus rupturing the hull or piping that pumped seawater coolant to the engine.

Seawater was already lapping the top of the engine when a crew member lifted the hatch and peered down into the hold.

Frantic efforts were then made to get a hand pump working, distress calls were radioed out and other fishing boats converged on the scene as quickly as they could in an effort to save the Helene 1 and its crew.

A pump that was supposed to be helicoptered to the stricken vessel did not arrive in time and the Helene 1, listing badly, finally turned-turkey and sank while being towed to Westport by another fishing boat. 

None of the accusations made by Susan Titford concerning the loss of this boat or purported financial rewards that allegedly came from the tragic mishap, can be sustained in view of the known facts and Susan proves herself to be, once again, severely truth-challenged.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Here below is my email exchange with Mr. Trevor Robb of Aeromarine Industries Ltd, builders of the Helene 1 fishing boat:

From: Martin Doutré
Sent: 25 January 2014 7:48 a.m.
To: sales@aeromarine.co.nz
Subject: Aeromarine Industries Ltd: Helene 1, 1969

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am doing research on the Helene 1 fishing boat, built by Robb & Co in 1969 and would appreciate any specifications or photos of the boat under construction or finished.

I understand the hull was steel and that it later underwent modification to elongate the hull to 46′.

I understand also that it had huge fuel carrying capacity, with steel tanks lining the entirety of the inner hull.

Any information you could supply from your archives would be most appreciated.

Best wishes,

Martin Doutré,
Auckland.

From: Trevor Robb
Sent: Monday, 27 January 2014 7:13 p.m.
To: Martin Doutré
Cc: ‘Simon Robb’
Subject: FW: Aeromarine Industries Ltd: Helene 1, 1969

Hello Martin, Thank you for your email re the Helene.

I worked on the team that designed and built this boat.  There are possibly some records available.  What is your interest in this boat?

Trevor Robb.

From: Martin Doutre
Sent: Monday, 27 January 2014 9:03 p.m.
To: Trevor
Subject: RE: Aeromarine Industries Ltd: Helene 1, 1969

Hi Trevor,

Many thanks for responding to my inquiry and it’s especially good to know that you assisted with both the design and building of the Helene 1.

My interest in the boat is to help the former skipper of the vessel (when it was lost 40-miles out to sea off Westport in 1985), Allan John Titford, from certain slanderous accusations.

Allan was fishing very successfully with the boat, but had recently had a repair done to the main shaft in Wanganui.

He and his brother Brian, plus the other crew member, noted that when the boat was underway after the fitting of the new shaft, there was a terrible shudder through the hull.

Allan told me that he laid a spanner on the aft part of the deck and it virtually floated on air because of the vibration.

Unfortunately, these many years on, Allan, in a bitter marital split, is being publically accused by his ex of having told her how he took an axe and chopped through the hull to sink the boat and collect on the insurance.

This is based upon the assumption that the hull was of wooden construction.

However, according to what Allan has told me from Mt. Eden Prison, where he is languishing due to the testimony and character assassination of his former wife, the boat was of all steel construction.

Further to that, when it was elongated to 46’ overall, the inner hull was lined with extra fuel tanks, sufficient to travel all the way to the Chatham’s and back on its own on-board supplies.

One would have to cut through the steel fuel tanks first to even get at the hull and, apparently, accomplish all of this in a stooped position where the headroom was only 4′.

Allan vehemently denies that he ever said such a thing to his wife throughout the entirety of the marriage.

The loss of the Helene 1 was a major setback for Allan. He not only had to settle for a much smaller replacement boat, but subsequently lost a large chunk of his fishing quota in the process.

Any verification you could give related to the materials used in the construction of the Helene 1 or an overall blueprint picture, photo or whatever would be most appreciated.

Best wishes,

Martin Doutré,
Auckland.

From: Martin Doutre
Sent: Monday, 17 March 2014 5:42 p.m.
To: Trevor
Subject: RE: Aeromarine Industries Ltd: Helene 1, 1969

Hi Trevor,

You may recall my request for information about the Helene 1 fishing boat a couple of months ago.

All I really need to know is whether it was all-steel construction, as my friend Allan Titford (former owner) claims.

As stated, he has been publicly accused in the New Zealand media of sinking the boat with an axe (40-miles off Westport) … which, in and of itself, would have been very risky and put his life, as well as that of his crew members, in severe jeopardy.

Allan assures me that the boat was all-steel construction through the hull, which was also lined with fuel tanks from stem to stern.

Although I would dearly love any photos or other archival materials that you may be able to supply about the Helene 1, to exonerate Allan your simple verification that the hull was all-steel construction would be sufficient to counter and silence his accusers, who assume the hull was wooden and thereby sinkable with an axe.

Having worked in the trades myself for many years and done plenty of heavy-plate welding, I can readily see that this “sinking [a steel hulled boat] with an axe” scenario is ridiculous.

Best wishes, Martin Doutré,
Auckland.

From: Trevor Robb
Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2014 9:57 a.m.
To: ‘Martin Doutre’
Subject: RE: Aeromarine Industries Ltd: Helene 1, 1969

Yes Martin, I am able to confirm that the Helene 1 as built by D F Robb & Co Ltd was of all steel construction.

This should be able to be further confirmed by plans and approval given by the then Ministry of Transport, Marine Division.

Yours faithfully

Trevor Robb
Former Manager and shareholder of D F Robb & Co Ltd.

Advertisements
Allan Titford, Martin Doutre, Ulanda Titford

Martin Doutré: good on you, Ulanda!

The following are the words of Martin Doutré, a man who, along with Ross Baker, deserves a knighthood for the work he has done to enlighten truth-seeking New Zealanders.

Ross and Martin’s dogged research has exposed many Treatygate scams. They, in tandem with fellow walking encyclopaedia Allan Titford, Allan’s once-supportive wife Sue, and others like Jean Jackson, have proved to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers (not including the corrupt Waitangi Tribunal) that the Te Roroa land claim on the Titford farm is false.

For decades Ross, and more recently Martin, have spent a great deal of time with the Titford family, and got to know them all well.

These are Martin’s thoughts on the predicament Ulanda now finds herself in.

_______________________________

Essentially, Ulanda’s world got turned on its head when a bunch of conniving adults, from varied backgrounds and harbouring their own selfish motives, hatched a plan to take Allan Titford down.

The primary instigators of this programme appear to have been government and grievance-industry-aligned outsiders, who had tried to nail Allan Titford to the wall for years, in retaliation (utu) for the embarrassment he continued to cause them with his all-too-well documented evidence.

Some of this gaggle obviously included Crown Law, the Waitangi Tribunal, the police, Te Roroa opportunist thugs, The Treaty of Waitangi Information (propaganda) Unit and various members of parliament, whose dirty laundry had been hung out by Titford for all to see, etc., etc.

A unique opportunity arose to exploit Susan’s disenchantment with the rigours of dairy farm life and a marriage that was turning sour. The evidence suggests that, bit by bit, she began to play ball behind the scenes with authorities hell-bent on destroying Allan Titford once and for all.

What the authorities had failed miserably to accomplish in the public arena by fair and open means, they would accomplish via a domestic dispute sideshow and ad hominem attack that distracted public attention away from the true, outstanding issues.

The Titford children obviously became mere pawns in a strategic game being played out at a high level by government corridor-creepers with political agendas, offering enticements (pie in the sky by and by) to those in the family willing to cooperate.

It was, however, absolutely essential that there be solidarity, a singular focus and closed ranks by the entire group. Everyone had to toe the line or certain family heavies would need to intervene to browbeat or intimidate unbelievers and strays into compliant submission.

Ulanda and others of the impressionable children fell victim to severe yell-you-down adult attacks, emotional blackmail and intimidation when they broke ranks and were no longer willing to be actors in the farcical pantomime being played out.

Allan Titford - flounders in frying pan by Martin Doutre Left: The Titford dairy farm home at Awanui was a pretty normal  rough-and- tumble household that got a bit dishevelled, then cleaned up and organised on a daily basis. The cupboards were always overflowing with plenty of goodies, the lounge was often strewn with toys and, in this photo, Xmas cards from well-wishers hang from above the sliding doors leading out to the deck. Nice portraits of all the kids hung from the walls and, although the language between siblings was often colourful, everyone interacted reasonably well. 

Right: Flounder speared at the back of the farm by James and Ulanda sit in the kitchen sink before a fry-up.

Allan Titford - Shiane, Jesse, Ulanda in vintage car by Martin Doutre

Left: Ulanda, in gumboots, gets down into a muddy ditch in preparation of getting a strop around a stranded cow before it gets gently pulled to safety by the tractor.

Right: Shiane, Ulanda and Jesse horse around in one of Allan’s vintage cars before it’s put to bed in a shed.

Allan Titford - Shiane, Jesse, Ulanda, Alyssa at beach by Martin Doutre

Left: Alyssa (background) and Ulanda (foreground) involved in the once-a-day, afternoon milking and training up the city-boy bystander on what to do.

Right: Shiane, Jesse and Alyssa in the background and Ulanda sitting in the water at Ninety Mile Beach, not far from the farm, where they often went to recreate. The also swam regularly at the local lake and frequently dined out at Kaitaia.

I was impressed that the kids were always well dressed, seemed to have all of the latest electronic gadgetry or toys, etc., and what I would have described as a nice environment to grow up in at and around the farm.

Allan maintained a level of discipline that kept the children on the straight and narrow, which situation, once he was out of the picture (2.5 years after these pictures were taken), turned to custard.

Some of the kids turned feral once they were beyond Allan’s jurisdiction. Adults such as Susan, as well as her father Graham and brother Richard turned a blind eye and blithely let the older girls be sexually exploited by live-in adult predators, a situation Allan would never have tolerated for an instant.

If anything, Allan was perhaps over-protective and ever mindful of consequences, which might explain why in about 40 years of driving he never had one speeding or parking ticket.

Alyssa and her boyfriend Tyler, as well as James, complained to me about the constant harassment they endured from Graham and Richard Cochrane, which caused them to flee the Hikurangi home and try to make a life for themselves elsewhere.

Similarly, both Ulanda and Gene Hanham (an adult who had been permitted to sleep with 13 year old Ulanda and had impregnated her when she was only about 14 years of age) complained of the almost daily violence and abuse being handed down by Graham and Richard, which caused them to flee also.

When they did finally fly the coop, however, the threats from Susan, Graham, Richard and Alyssa came in thick and fast, heavily laced with emotional blackmail to get them back into line.

Gene Hanham had been threatened with a shot between his eyes or in the chest, and, according to dispossessed Northland farmer, Don Harrison, something akin to that did in fact happen, except with a non-lethal, gun-blasted, paper-wad projectile that, according to Don, is reported to have “hurt like hell”.

Thereafter, Gene Hanham apparently saw the world in a whole new light and wrote to Allan, threatening him that he was not to, under any circumstances, release any of the supportive statements Ulanda had sent to him.

Isn’t it amazing what a near-death experience can do to an individual’s outlook on life, and how putting the fear of god into someone can bring about such a dramatic and spontaneous reappraisal of how they should conduct themselves?

So, in summary, very young, impressionable and vulnerable Ulanda, for all of her good intentions and genuine sentiments in support of her father, didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of countering the many adult bullies that surrounded her, yelling her down and bludgeoning her into dutiful submission when she refused to participate in the let’s-all-hate-Dad game.

In the end, even the father of her child, Gene, withdrew his support, seemingly in dread fear after having so recently confronted his own delicate grip on mortality.

Good on you Ulanda!

Despite your tender years and all of the intimidation or turmoil you were unfairly subjected to, you still had the courage of your convictions to speak out in defence of your much-maligned Dad.

With all due consideration to your present situation or need to survive as a young mother and partner, trying to make a go of things, your former actions of speaking the truth when forbidden to do so, stand out as remarkable and courageous.

I have great respect and admiration for you, as do others who read your words, for what you tried to do in such intimidating and difficult circumstances.

Despite your heart-felt pleas, your Dad had the ultimate gag-order placed on him.

If he contacted you in any way, even through a third party like me, it meant a serious breach of the trespass-order and immediate imprisonment … as he came to find out when he tried to help Alyssa in 2010.

What you wanted or what your father wanted didn’t count, as others held all the power over you both.

Allan Titford, Denise Whitehead, Sue Titford (Cochrane), Ulanda Titford

Ulanda Titford desperate to see her dad – and said Sue put sewage in his food

With some reluctance and sadness, I publish the following statements of a young Ulanda Titford, then aged 15.

Martin Doutré tells me he knew Ulanda as a nice young girl, whom he is sure has recently been pressured by her mother and Sue’s violent family into switching her allegiance, in exchange for money and safety for herself, partner and baby.

This is how much she detested her mother in 2011, and wanted to be with her father Allan — recently imprisoned for 24 years for supposedly abusing her, her mother and siblings…

Allan Titford - Ulanda Titford statement 2-2-11 p1

Allan Titford - Ulanda Titford statement 2-2-11 p2

Allan Titford - Ulanda Titford statement 2-2-11 p3

Sue says Ulanda was bribed to write the above.

Oh, and the below, written the same day…

Allan Titford - Ulanda Titford 2nd statement 2-2-11 p1Allan Titford - Ulanda Titford 2nd statement 2-2-11 p2

And this, written the next day…

Allan Titford - Ulanda Titford statement 3-2-11
Even though Ulanda desperately wanted her dad in her life, Sue’s protection order banned Allan from making any contact with his children.

This cost him dearly when Martin Doutré told Allan that his daughter Alyssa was roaming around the countryside out of control while under Sue’s care (she and a boyfriend having just stolen Martin’s car).

As a concerned dad, Allan decided to breach his protection order and ring Sue, and they had a long, amicable chat about the situation.

Then Sue reported Allan to the police, and he was locked up for four months — until Martin’s testimony got him released.

Amazingly, even if Allan had asked Martin to contact Alyssa — or Ulanda in the above case — Allan would still have been thrown in prison.

The state has destroyed his relationship with his children, and Sue has been free to fill their heads with terrifying stories of Allan wanting to kill them. Ulanda, for one, clearly had no such concerns about him.

Below is the statement of Denise Whitehead, the mother of Ulanda’s boyfriend Gene Hanham…

Allan Titford - Mrs Whitehead statement supporting Ulanda - phone nos. obscured

Allan Titford, Gene Hanham, Sue Titford (Cochrane)

Daughter’s boyfriend accuses Sue and family of lying, bribing and threatening to kill

Allan Titford - Gene Hanham statement - Sue not caring about lying From the statement (below) of Gene Hanham, boyfriend
of Sue and Allan Titford’s daughter Ulanda.

Sue says that what you are about to read was extracted from her daughter’s boyfriend, Gene Hanham, by bribery.

What do you think?

To assist you, I will soon be posting a similar statement by Ulanda herself, which Sue also says was made in response to bribe by Allan. Allan emphatically denies this.

But Sue does not deny having offered each of her children $5000, but does deny that it was an inducement to testify on her behalf. Hanham says otherwise…

Allan Titford - Gene Hanham statement - Sue offering kids $5000

Question for Sue: If Ulanda is as susceptible to bribes as you say, could your offer — and Allan’s failure to deliver on his (which he insists he never made) — explain why Ulanda is now siding with you?

Now read Gene Hanham’s statement. Note in particular the comment:

“to me we shouldn’t be afarid of allan titford we should be affarid of the Cochrane family. and im scared of grahame Cochrane & richard Cochrane because they both have got gun’s & a gun licence and they both have told me that if i ever told any bodie what i had been told bye them & Susan that they would put a bullet either between my eye’s our in my chest … the way they talk they will do anything for the money & that’s what it is all over Susan Cochrane just want’s all the money and the land.”

Allan Titford - Gene Hanham statement - Cochrane threat to kill him

Allan Titford - Gene Hanham statement 2-2-11 p.1 Allan Titford - Gene Hanham statement 2-2-11 p.2 Allan Titford - Gene Hanham statement 2-2-11 p.3 Allan Titford - Gene Hanham statement 2-2-11 p.4 Allan Titford - Gene Hanham statement 2-2-11 p.5 Allan Titford - Gene Hanham statement 2-2-11 p.6

Allan Titford, Alyssa Titford (Cochrane), Dennis Cochrane, Gene Hanham, James Titford (Cochrane), Shiane Titford, Ulanda Titford

The Titford trial: a badly-orchestrated litany of lies

Allan Titford - transcript - Sue admits offering kids $5000

Allan Titford - transcript - Alyssa says she didn't

Allan Titford - transcript - James says she didn't

Allan Titford - transcript - Ulanda says she didn't

Allan Titford - transcript - Shiane says she didn't

Questions and Answers from the court transcript of Allan Titford’s trial.

Last Saturday, I visited Allan Titford in his new home of Rimutaka Prison in Upper Hutt. I will be going over the hill again tomorrow, and hopefully every Saturday until I find a good reason to abandon him to his fate, or until he is released.

(Or until someone tampers with my brakes.)

So far, all I’m finding is more reasons to support him. I’m finding evidence of Sue Titford and her family having told lie after lie. The above conflicting accounts of whether she bribed her children is just one such example.

Sue admitted she did offer them $5000, but not as a bribe to testify for her.

But at the same one-sided trial, the kids were evidently unaware that she had admitted doing this, so each proceeded to lie that she had not offered them any money at all.

Meanwhile, here is the recollection of Ulanda Titford’s boyfriend Gene Hanham:

Allan Titford - Gene Hanham statement - Sue offering kids $5000

From a statement written by Gene Hanham on 2 February 2011.
Hanham, along with many others who speak well of Allan,
including Sue’s own brother, was not called as a witness.

You’ll remember in my last post I said I’d been talking to Sue’s brother, Dennis Cochrane. Dennis believes Allan is innocent.

He was surprised when I told him that Sue had said their father had confessed to burning down the house, and wondered aloud whether Sue might have done it herself.

This is what he had to say about the sister he has known all his life, and does not trust to tell the truth:

“I dont know what evidence the other famly members have said about Allan, but what I think is: Sue would have had input into all their testimonies.

As for slavery, I have video of them on holiday, as they went just about every year while Allan was still at home working the farm.

The kids are out of control after Sue left Allan — James and Alyssa into drugs —  just out of control.

Sue was the one who was telling our parents that Allan wants them dead. She was always telling them that as mum and dad would tell me so.

Just let me know if I can help. Like I said I’ll be happy to tell my side of things Sue and her famly have done to me.”

Bear in mind that Sue is a self-confessed liar. She was given immunity by the government from prosecution for perjury. This was on the grounds that she lied for Allan for 22 years because he would have beaten her up if she had not.

I say she is lying about that.

Either way, she is clearly capable of lying, for whatever reason.

(And why, you might well ask, would the state want to get involved in a marital case — unless it wanted to punish the man who had done such a good job of exposing state corruption?)

Last Saturday, as Allan Titford sat with me in his orange prison boiler suit, he shook his head and said, “I never would have believed I could end up somewhere like this.”

So disillusioned has he become about the New Zealand so-called justice system that he’s renounced his New Zealand citizenship and that of his new son, Leo, under the law of sui juris.

Now I don’t claim to understand that law. But he does, and I can’t say I blame him for disowning the country that has persecuted him so mercilessly for over half his life.

At the moment, Allan is due to have his appeal heard in June. But having been stripped of his assets, he is again reliant on the state for legal representation.

And as happened before his trial, his legal aid application is again being stalled, so his lawyer will have next to no time to prepare. Last time, the approval came so late that the first time he met his lawyer was on the first day of the trial.

How can that be called a fair trial?

Not only that, but his most inept North Shore barrister, John Moroney, refused to even visit Allan beforehand. This was absolutely necessary, since the state had banned Allan from travelling north of the Waikato — supposedly to stop him from menacing certain Northlanders, but more likely to stop him from maintaining his farm.)

John Moroney also failed to challenge the children on why their testimonies, above, conflicted so markedly with their mother’s. Am I really the first one to have noticed this?

Please send the information on this blog to as many good Kiwis as you can, and let’s see if we can find a decent MP or benefactor who is prepared to help get him out.

It will take someone with rare courage and commitment to fairness, given that Allan has been so effectively demonised as a monster by his former wife and former government.

Allan Titford, Alyssa Titford (Cochrane), Sue Titford (Cochrane)

DEATHBED CONFESSION: SUE TITFORD’S DAD TORCHED MAUNGANUI BLUFF HOME – Sue, kids, police and Allan’s legal aid lawyer knew Allan was innocent, but let the court convict him.

Allan Titford - Sheryll Titford's affidavit - key section

There has been a major breakthrough in the Allan Titford case. And sadly (but typically) every newspaper, TV channel and radio station in this country, in accord with the state’s wishes, is covering it up.

Before you read the affidavit below, bear in mind that the woman writing it, Sheryll Titford, along with her husband, Allan’s brother Brian, doesn’t like Allan. She has always supported her former sister-in-law, Susan Titford (Cochrane).

(And before you conclude that Allan must be guilty if his brother and sister-in-law don’t like him, wait till you hear what Sue’s brother Dennis Cochrane has to say about the dishonesty of his sister Sue — but that’s the subject of another post.)

This is what makes Sheryll Titford’s voluntary affidavit so remarkable. Despite being a friend of Sue’s, Sheryll has been moved by her conscience to do the right thing by Allan.

Sheryll’s affidavit reveals that Sue told her that her (Sue’s) father, Graham Cochrane, confessed on his deathbed to burning down Sue and Allan’s family home at Maunganui Bluff.

Sue and Allan’s daughter Alyssa Titford witnessed Graham Cochrane’s confession.

Sheryll gave all this information to the Kaitaia police, who had charged Allan Titford with the arson, and were in the middle of the trial trying to prove it.

Allan’s aunt, Ileen McGrath, who had persuaded Sheryll to tell the police what she knew, gave the same information to Allan’s state-provided legal aid lawyer, John Moroney.

And yet, despite Sue, Alyssa, the police and Allan’s government lawyer having information that Allan did not burn down his house, Sue testified in court — in great detail — that he did.

And the police said nothing and allowed Allan to be sentenced to 24 years imprisonment for this and many other charges, convicted solely on the evidence of Sue and her family and friends who stood to gain massively from stripping Allan of his money, property and liberty.

And the lawyer, even more remarkably, made no mention of the new evidence in his client’s defence, having previously called precisely no witnesses for Allan despite being given several pages of names!

OK. Now read Sheryll Titford’s affidavit…

Allan Titford - Sheryll Titford's Affidavit

Affidavit of Sheryll Titford saying Sue Titford’s father, Graham Cochrane
confessed on his deathbed to burning down Sue and Allan’s house.

Now follows another affidavit. This one’s from Allan Titford’s aunt, Ileen McGrath, telling of how Sheryll told her about Sue’s revelation of her father’s confessioni.

It also reveals that Sheryll gave this information to the firm acting for Allan — and yet Allan’s state-provided legal aid lawyer, John Moroney, did nothing to bring it to the attention of the judge before sentencing.

Ileen McGrath's affidavit witnessed

Affidavit of Ileen McGrath confirming her discussions with
Sheryll Titford and with Allan’s legal aid lawyer’s firm.

Now finally a statement from Martin Doutré, the dogged researcher who had already formed the view that Graham Cochrane had committed the arson before a chat with Ileen McGrath confirmed his suspicion.

_____________________________________

STATEMENT OF MARTIN DOUTRÉ
1 JANUARY 2014

To whom it may concern. 

INTERVIEW WITH ILEEN MCGRATH, ALLAN TITFORD’S AUNT, 31ST OF DECEMBER 2013. 

On the 31st of December 2013, I phoned Ileen McGrath, Allan Titfords’s aunt, and arranged to drop off a package of papers to her.

I had contacted her the day before to discuss the visit I had with her nephew, Allan John Titford, at Mt. Eden Prison the previous Sunday afternoon.

In the course of that earlier 30th of December 2013 phone call I had expressed my impression that it seemed highly likely to me that the 4th of July 1992 arson of the Titford farm home at Maunganui Bluff might have been done by Susan Titford’s father.

This suspicion had been aroused in reading letters or reports by Susan at the time, which indicated her intense fear of the Te Roroa Maori terrorists and their death threats or on-going intimidation of both Allan and her.

It appeared very likely that Susan’s father, Graham Cochrane, strongly-desired to remove Susan from the very threatening environment, at all cost, and considered that the best way to accomplish this was by destroying the home to force eviction from the property under siege.

In stating my suspicions to Ileen McGrath by phone on the 30th of December 2013, she immediately said she had information, along the same lines, that she would not discuss on the phone, but would share with me when I dropped off the package of papers.

At around 1: 45 pm to 3 pm on the 31st of December, at her home at Browns Bay and in the presence of Lewis Titford, Allan’s uncle, Ileen gave the following account:

  • When Susan Titford’s father, Graham Cochrane died on the 16th of August 2011, Sheryll Titford, wife of Brian Titford of Waiwera, Allan Titford’s brother, went up to visit the family the day before the funeral.
  • Sheryll Titford was a close friend and confidant of Susan Titford (née Cochrane) and was belligerent towards Allan Titford, as was Brian Titford, Sheryll’s husband.
  • At this family gathering or wake, Susan, very distraught and in the company of Alyssa and James, approached Sheryll and told her that Graham Cochrane had made a deathbed confession that he had burnt down the home at Maunganui Bluff in 1992.
  • About a week after Graham Cochrane’s funeral, Ileen McGrath attended a family BBQ at Waiwera and washed dishes afterwards with Sheryll.
  • Sheryll appeared to have a bottled-up need to share the very important revelation from Susan with Ileen and, although Sheryll remained contemptuous in her attitude towards Allan, but loyal to Susan, she was in a quandary as to what she should do with this very significant knowledge.
  • Ileen McGrath told Sheryll that she should “do the right thing” and disclose the information to the police.
  • At a later, unknown, date Sheryll phoned Ileen to say “It’s done”.
  • Sheryll then recounted how she’d transmitted this information to Detective Eddie Evans, the individual handling Titford’s files and the one designated to provide Allan Titford with full police disclosure.
  • Despite having this pertinent and highly significant information in his possession before Allan Titford was sentenced, accompanied by a legal obligation to disclose it to Allan, Detective Eddie Evans withheld this from the court.
  • As a result of this omission, Allan Titford was subsequently convicted of arson, even though the police knew he was innocent of the charge before sentencing occurred.
  • Also, during the 2013 trial and before sentencing, Ileen McGrath wished to speak with Allan’s legal aid lawyer and tell him what Sheryll had told her, however did not know his name.
  • Allan had told Ileen that his lawyer was Mr. Moloney and that he had offices in Albany. Ileen could not find any such individual in the telephone book, so called barrister Greg Denholm to see if he had contact details.
  • Greg Denholm said to Ileen that the lawyer’s name was Mahoney, but Ileen could find no such reference either, so simply went through the yellow pages to locate lawyers with premises in Albany. She then found reference to an Albany-based lawyer called Moroney.
  • After verifying that Mr. Moroney was representing Allan Titford, Ileen went down to the premises of the lawyer, situated adjacent to the Albany courthouse, and asked to see Mr. Moroney, but the secretary said he was away.
  • Ileen gave an account of what Sheryll Titford had told her and said that an affidavit (verbal or otherwise) about Graham Cochrane’s deathbed confession had been presented, by Sheryll, to Detective Eddie Evans, who had noted these facts.
  • The secretary said that she knew Eddie Evans very well and would transmit this information to Mr. Moroney.

Allan Titford - Graham Cochrane photos

Graham Neville Cochrane, 1945 – 2011, arsonist, who admitted on his deathbed
to burning down the home of Allan and Susan Titford at Maunganui Bluff on
the 4th of July 1992.

Ileen McGrath had done all in her power to convey this important information to Allan’s lawyer for use in Allan’s defence.

Regardless of this effort, the affidavit by Sheryll Titford was not presented for the court’s consideration, nor were any witnesses of Graham Cochrane’s deathbed confession called for cross-examination.

Allan Titford was subsequently convicted of burning down his own home and sentenced accordingly, based upon the known fraudulent testimony of Susan Titford (née Cochrane), who knew first-hand that her father, Graham Cochrane had admitted to being the arsonist.

Alyssa and James Titford also knew that their father was innocent of this charge, but deliberately withheld that knowledge from the court.

Susan, Alyssa and James have proven themselves to be hostile witnesses who have knowingly committed perjury and whose testimony should not be permissible in a court of law.

Ileen McGrath prepared her own affidavit concerning what was told to her by Sheryll Titford, as well as their combined attempts to transmit this very important information to the police and court prior to Allan Titford’s sentencing on this false charge.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Doutré,

1/1/14.

_____________________________________

There is much more to come out on this story, specifically about state corruption and collusion with a family of habitual liars.

But will a mainstream medium have the guts to run it?

If Sue can lie so brazenly about the arson, what else did she, Alyssa and the other children lie about?

More soon.