Allan Titford, Maori TV, Martin Doutre, Sue Titford (Cochrane)

What Maori TV didn’t show you

As I thought. Despite being handed two affidavits revealing that Sue Titford knew that her father had burned down the family home, Native Affairs reporter Iulia Leilua totally ignored this damning but highly inconvenient evidence.

Her report (with Martin Doutre and me featuring in part 2) blithely persisted with the line that Allan Titford had committed the arson — a charge Sue was happy to repeat in Court, knowing that National MP and now Far North mayor John Carter had guaranteed her  state immunity from being charged with perjury.

Anticipating Maori TV dishonesty from my several previous encounters with the channel, Martin and I took the unusual step of bringing along our own cameraman, John de Vere, to film all the interviews.

I’m glad we did so, as now you can see for yourself by comparing the raw footage above with the broadcast story how this state-funded channel wilfully omitted a key piece of evidence at odds with the state’s agenda to vilify Allan Titford.

Iulia did not appreciate being surprised by a second camera, but I explained that I had been surprised so many times by her channel that I simply did not trust them to present a fair account of the Titford story. I wanted a full record of everything I said, so I could post it if my fears proved correct.

The reporter had little choice but to accept this condition.

I then handed her the two affidavits from Sheryl Titford and Ileen McGrath. I explained that these were evidence of Sue’s admission that her father had confessed on his deathbed to burning down her and Allan’s home.

I thought this might be of interest to Maori TV. After all, as well as exonerating Allan Titford, Sue’s admission also exonerated the Te Roroa iwi from involvement in the arson.

But apparently they were more interested in presenting Te Roroa as aggrieved, and Allan as the cause.

You can see Iulia holding the two affidavits throughout the interview, and yet her report does not once mention this extraordinary evidence.

I’ve asked her by email why not. I’ll let you know if she ever answers.

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “What Maori TV didn’t show you

  1. Hi John,
    Despite Iulia Leilui’s oh-so-sincere pleas and assurances to the contrary when trying to con us into participation (‘Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly’), last night’s programme went just as I expected it would and ended up being the usual, treacherous, stab-in-the-back.

    The whole thing was propaganda from start to finish, with major evidence that we presented being very conspicuous by its absence in the final cut.

    As usual, all the truly valid stuff ended up on the editing room floor and rent-a-prick ring-ins were injected in our stead to call us names and layer us with all the standard derogatory titles.

    From here on in, these ever-lamenting, grievance-industry cargo-cultists can go to hell, as I have no further faith in their integrity to actually present anything valid or based upon documented facts.

    I hate to be an ‘I told you so’, John, but ‘I told you so’! … as if you didn’t already know from your own dismal experience in dealing with this lot and being shafted by them every time.

    The Te Roroa claim on Allan Titford’s farm was transparent fraud, as any full scrutiny of the historical documents proves beyond doubt.

    Amongst all the other bullshit they presented, I note that the propagandists continued to push the fraud of Allan Titford’s allegedly receiving a huge and generous pay-out for his confiscated farm, but of course there was no mention of the government’s creative accountancy claw-back of the money.

    Here’s an excerpt from Allan Titford’s own written account:

    Crown & Justice Department use Propaganda:

    An item appeared in the New Zealand Herald on 13th December 1995 stating – Titford takes $3.25M to settle dispute over Northland Farm.

    ‘The former Maunganui Bluff farmer Mr Allan Titford had accepted a Government offer of $3.25 million for his Northland property. Mr Titford, who had previously rejected the over, yesterday signed over his farm to a regional land bank. The deal ends a divisive land dispute for the fisherman-turned-farmer who abandoned the property and moved to Tasmania with his wife and two young children in 1993. He could not be contacted for comment last night, but it is believed the settlement is made up of a $2.25 million payment to cover the debts he incurred since a land claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal in 1987 and a further $1 million for the farm. The Te Roroa sub-tribe successfully lodged a claim for the Manuwhetai Reserve, a 38ha pocket included in the 666ha Titford property due to a land title mistake. Mr Titford last week sought $4million, but after announcing the settlement yesterday, the Minister of Justice, Mr Graham, described the agreed sum as “a fair figure.” “I believe that the effort made by the Crown to acquire Manuwhetai and solve Mr Titford’s position will be seen positively by all New Zealanders,” the Minister said. Mr Titford had until Friday to accept the deal and faced pressure from his bank to pay the $2.25 million debt or lose the farm.’

    Media spread Propaganda:

    ‘The newspapers stated that I had accepted $3.25 million to settle the dispute being $2.25 million for the debt and $1 million for the farm. But actually compensation was only equal to the livestock and machinery and the farm was taken to cover the debts they caused and to cover for the loss of value on the coastal land due to the false claim.

    The media did not mention that the livestock, machinery, surveying and development done on the property were included and that I was forced to sign under duress.

    The media called it debts, alleging that I had incurred them, when in fact they were forced on me as a result of the false land claim as covered in this book.

    In addition, the media say they tried to contact me but this is also bullshit, as nobody, except one person, rang to say sorry to hear you were forced off your property.

    The media claimed that I had abandoned the property. However, as shown, we were forced by being burnt out, by the claimant’s claim and especially the Crown. Even our living allowance was being recalled and considered a debt.

    It should also be remembered that the Bank took the income off the farm while we were being held to ransom from the day the Bank took control, up until the day I was forced to sign under duress, six years later.

    The Justice Minister, Doug Graham, claimed it was a fair deal and alleging that the Crown was helping me out. Not bad when they were in fact ripping me off for my private asset.’

    One of their best suck-you-in, con-jobs perpetrated on Allan Titford involved the Rural Bank offering to help Titford to buy a “replacement” farm at Taupo, for which the Rural Bank would put up a deposit of $200,000, to be held in trust by the bank.

    The Taupo farm sale was “conditional”, with the vendor required to meet a series of well-described conditions before the deposit was paid.

    Allan Titford had no access to the money, which could only be released directly through the Rural Bank.

    By some inexplicable means, the $200,000 was released to the land agents, Elders, and it then disappeared into the system, undoubtedly coming back to the Rural Bank.

    Titford was held liable for the sum, although he derived no benefit whatsoever from it, and six years later, when the government finally forced the sale of Titford’s Maunganui Bluff farm (under duress), the $200,000 deposit that the Rural Bank gave to Elders (or whoever) had grown to a $460,000 debt (with the tagged on interest).

    Allan Titford states that government henchman, Ray Chappell, who had himself formerly been a director within the Rural Bank, in smug amusement, told Allan later that it had all been done to break Titford and force him into bankruptcy.

    If any impartial researcher would care to take into account all contingencies of Titford’s investments into the property, for which no latter compensation was forthcoming, farm working capital confiscated by the Rural Bank or other government departments and agencies when the farm business was frozen by official interference, highly inflated penalty interest charges unfairly imposed by the government owned Rural Bank after the curtailment of day-to-day farming activities, loss of weekly farming returns and such bizarre items as crippling ACC levies and other cons designed to drain equity and lead to bankruptcy, etc., etc., then Allan Titford’s final payout per acre, in real accountancy terms, was a pittance.

    He was forced to walk away from 1746-acres with about enough money to buy a 10 acre block.

    For a blow-by-blow account of how the Titford’s were terrorised and bludgeoned into submission by Te Roroa and government bullies see:

    http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/AllanandSusanvsTheWaitangiTribunal1.html

    1. On the contrary Martin, we now have hard video proof of the state’s corrupt methods. That was all we could hope for, and we’ve got it. You should congratulate yourself.

      Your own story was surprisingly minimised to make way for the Titford story. On the day I got the impression it was going to be the other way round. But this way round is certainly more helpful to Allan.

      John de Vere captured all your interviews as well, and I can post that too.

      As a result of our decision to cover the shoot with our own camera, the thousands of people who will read this blog, and their networks, can observe unfiltered the media’s chronic bias.

      The suppressing of the affidavits is a huge story and people will distribute this post widely.

      What we now need to do, Martin, is go through Iulia’s false claims one by one, and state our evidence that proves them to be lies.

      Such a side-by-side comparison, presented simply and clearly, will make devastating reading. It will be a retail sales tool, not just another warehouse item of wholesale information.

      Remember: our target market is those who can be persuaded by our evidence of state corruption to dig deep and help Allan. This dishonest story helps us do that.

      So I think it’s an excellent result. You and I came across as reasonable people. (At least to other reasonable people.) Paul Moon just trotted out his standard party line and provided no evidence to negate the things you said.

      Apart from Iulia’s scandalous withholding of evidence that didn’t suit her ‘vilify Titford’ agenda, it wasn’t a bad piece as Maori TV items go.

      We must now set to and negate the claims li(n)e by li(n)e.

      Do we have any volunteers to transcribe the programme?

      1. Hi John,
        yes, I’ll start looking through the hours of film footage we have on hand, which is mostly devoted to the archaeological sites Maori TV requested I show them.

        I was with them from before sunrise until after sunset on the day of the equinox and showed them very ancient, but still perfectly functioning, solar observatories for both rise and set.

        From these observatories, the ancient Patu-paiarehe people could get an exact fix on just which day was the equinox (vernal or autumnal).

        Throughout the entire day I was with the Maori TV crew, we visited multiple sites that clearly proved pre-Maori occupation of New Zealand.

        Some of the beautifully incised pictograms on the obelisks or laboriously carved bullaun bowls had sat buried under a layer of tephra ash from the 186 AD explosion of Taupo, until uncovered in 1992.

        This proved that the intricate carving into hard granite had been done prior to 1000-years before Maori got here.

        One absurd statement, spewed out time-and-time-again by their twisted spokespeople in this programme, was about how we’re ANTI-TREATY.

        There are probably few people in New Zealand who are more PRO-TREATY or in support of the treaty than Allan Titford, Ross Baker or me.

        We’re simply opposed to the reinvented or bastardised treaty interpretation that’s been concocted and force-fed to New Zealanders since 1975 or so … the apartheid treaty that cannot be upheld by historical documents … the one pushed by grievance-industry aligned pseudo-historians like Paul Moon or Claudia Orange.

        We have always honoured the treaty, whereas these money-grubbing opportunists and hypocrites in the grievance-industry have done all in their power to destroy its everyone-inclusive, fair and benign meaning.

        To see what the true, unadulterated treaty said and meant, study the documented evidence at:

        http://www.celticnz.org/TreatyBook/Precis.htm

      2. Martin I suggest we focus on the Titford part of the programme first, since Allan is in the greatest need.

        I simply don’t have time right now to transcribe all the claims, but maybe someone reading this does.

        Then we can answer them li(n)e by li(n)e.

  2. Very sad Martin. I watched a lot of it but her comments introducing the programme were enough for me to know it would be a very biased view. Not quite sure why they are so intent on lying to the public.

  3. I too saw it and ‘disappointed’ would definitely not be the right word because I was really aghast with their audacity which knew no bounds. However I don’t know why because I expected exactly what we got. I think part of me was hoping that for once they would present what you said in a more neutral/unbiased way, within reason. They were blatantly biased and to think we, the taxpayers, fund that awful propaganda channel.

    1. Again Helen, by filming the filming we caught them deceiving the public. That is gold. I achieved everything I set out to achieve with this interview.

      It doesn’t matter what was screened, because the general public weren’t watching.

      What matters is that we captured evidence of state-sponsored Maori media truth-twisting.

      And we can now use that evidence to interest people who have not thus far been interested in this case.

      We will do this if everyone who reads this post sends the link to their friends. This is already happening in large numbers. The hits on this blog have tripled so far today.

      I’ve just heard that Allan Titford watched the show in Rimutaka Prison and is delighted to have his case back in the spotlight, despite all the lies in the programme.

      He knows we’re exposing the lies because other prisoners’ families have been telling their men what’s happening on this blog.

      In every prison he’s been in, Allan has encountered a large number of prisoners and guards sympathetic to his plight.

      A number of people have commented on how worried Alex Nathan, the Greek make-believe-Maori speaking on behalf of Te Roroa, looked on the programme.

      I’ve heard from multiple sources that Te Roroa are not happy having their little scam exposed.

      Sue Cochrane, no doubt contemplating her own future behind bars, is lashing out in all directions, unable to answer simple questions because she knows she’s guilty, and resorting to the last refuge of the guilty: threatening her accusers.

      It’s going well.

  4. hope you got raw footage of them reading the affidavits? did they get a copy of ulandas and genes to read?

    1. Ulanda’s and Gene’s statements were not sworn and witnessed affidavits in the legal sense, and I did not give them to the reporter.

      But Sheryl’s and Ileen’s were.

      One of them was even witnessed by a policeman, possibly without realising who he was assisting – ironic given that agency’s sordid and violent role in Allan’s persecution.

  5. One Hundred and Ten Reasons Why Allan Titford Must Be Given a Re-trial.

    1. Te Roroa tried to steal land from Ngapuhi and sell it to the Crown in 1874.
    2. Ngapuhi threaten to take up arm to defend their land.
    3. The chiefs agreed, Waipoua No 2 for Te Roroa and Manganui for Ngapuhi.
    4. Te Roroa sold their land in 1876 to the Crown as willing seller/willing buyer.
    5. Te Roroa tried to get more money from the Crown in 1876 but failed.
    6. Te Roroa only began to claim for Manuwhetai after the chief that sold it had died.
    7. In 1937 an inquiry was held but the Court found there was no evidence.
    8. Parliament rejected the Te Roroa’s claim in 1942.
    9. Mr Titford bought his farm in 1987 with freehold title issued by the Crown.
    10. Mr Titford borrowed $600,000 from the Crown owned Rural Bank.
    11. The farm included a Council approved beachfront subdivision.
    12. The subdivision when sold would clear his debt to the Rural Bank.
    13. Te Roroa lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal a month later.
    14. The Crown agreed to the claim in a ‘Statement of Fact’ in 1990.
    15. The claimants harass Mr Titford and erect signs on his subdivision.
    16. The signs state Mr Titford’s freehold titled land was “Maori Land”.
    17. The Crown and Police also refer to Mr Titford’s land as “Maori Land”.
    18. People stopped buying sections or cancelled sales.
    19. First house burnt to the ground and no charges laid.
    20. Mr Titford continues to have stock shot and machinery sabotaged.
    21. Mr Titford accused of setting fire to his family home. (Second house).
    22. Affidavits show Susan Titford’s father, Graham Cochrane set fire to the house.
    23. In 1992 the Waitangi Tribunal stated, “The land must be returned to Te Roroa”.
    24. Mr and Mrs Titford and the ONZF began the fight for the their rights.
    25. Mrs Titford was just as keen as Allan in researching the Te Roroa claim.
    26. Mr and Mrs Titford found Te Roroa had no claim to this land.
    27. Allan and Susan together wrote the book, “Robbery by Deceit”
    28. The Crown encourages Te Roroa to harass Mr and Mrs Titford.
    29. Mr Titford receives death threats, but the Police refuse to act.
    30. Mr Titford is charged with many offences but is found not guilty on all counts.
    31. The Rural Bank freezes Mr Titford’s account and takes over running the farm.
    32. Mr and Mrs Titford flee with their young daughter to Tasmania for safety.
    33. Mr Titford’s debts climb to $2.25 million dollars with the Bank running the farm.
    34. A Crown’s representative travels to Tasmania with an agreement to buy his farm.
    35. Mr Tiford did not want to sell his free hold titled farm he had just bought.
    36. The Crown and the Bank gang up on Mr Titford to sell or go bankrupt.
    37. The Crown offers Mr Titford’s father and brother a bribe to declare Allan insane.
    38. The family refuses to take the bribe of $500,000.
    39. Eventually Mr Titford is forced to sell his farm under duress in 1995.
    40. He discusses the sale agreement with his solicitor, Clive Jackson.
    41. The Crown offered Mr Titford a price well below its true (certified) valuation.
    42. Mr Titford was forced to sell his farm ‘under duress’ or forced into bankruptcy.
    43. This would include his father’s farm held by the bank as collateral on the loan.
    44. Phillip Fox Solicitors drafted the original agreement in 1994 for the Crown.
    45. He agreed to the sale agreement on 8 December 1995 with one amendment.
    46. The amended agreements arrive on the 11th but it is a completely new agreement.
    47. The Crown Law Office had drafted a new agreement with many extra clauses.
    48. A new clause stated Mr Titford could not sue the Bank for mismanagement.
    49. Mr Titford makes a large amendment to page 11 and only initials 4 pages.
    50. He also amended the Deed that the Te Roroa claim was an “alleged” claim.
    51. The Crown also agrees that the Te Roroa claim is only an “alleged” claim.
    52. Mr Titford has the amended agreement witness by the Crown’s Notary Public.
    53. Mr Titford signs the agreement ‘without legal advice’ and ‘under duress’.
    54. The Crown removed Mr Titford’s 4-initialed pages before they execute it.
    55. The Ombudsman’s officials confirm the documents had been ‘tampered with’.
    56. Mr Titford and his lawyer were refused copies of the executed documents.
    57. In 1995 the Crown stole their farm, assets and capital for an “alleged” claim.
    58. Mr and Mrs Titford and family return to New Zealand to start again at Awanui.
    59. The Crown continues to harass Mr and Mrs Titford.
    60. By now Mr and Mrs Titford have seven healthy children.
    61. All the assets were now placed in ‘Trust’ as Allan did not trust the Crown.
    62. By 2009 Susan had had enough of the harassment and decided to leave Allan.
    63. Susan writes to Barrister Greg Denholm.
    64. She asks, “If Allan was in jail would I be able to get control of the Trust”.
    65. Was this, “Criminal Intent to jail Allan to get control of the Trust”?
    66. Susan writes to the Mister of Justice about Perjury.
    67. He tells her if she can prove she was forced to lie she would not be charged.
    68. Hon John Carter hears of the separation and holds a meeting with Susan.
    69. He offers her immunity if she will co-operate with the Crown and Police.
    70. I seems Susan has had enough, “If you can’t beat them, join them”!
    71. Carter asks Susan to make a list of anything that would convict Mr Titford.
    72. The Crown then takes over, deleting some charges and adding many others.
    73. The Police interview the children behind closed doors.
    74. The Police censor the interview recordings before presenting them to the Court.
    75. It was stated at the trial Susan offered the children $5000 each.
    76. It was stated the $5000 was to testify against their father at the trial.
    77. Susan allowed her 15-year-old daughter to sleep with a 23-year-old man.
    78. Susan’s daughter ran away and the Police found her with the 23-year-old man.
    79. She said the family would beat her up and starve her if she went home.
    80. The Police informed CYF but they decided to leave her where she was.
    81. The Police and CYF allowed her to continue to sleep with the 24-year old man.
    82. Susan 15-year old daughter became pregnant to the 24-year old man.
    83. No charges were laid against the man under ‘Section 134 of the Crimes Act’.
    84. No charges were laid against her mother Susan or the family for ‘Child Abuse’.
    85. Mr Titford was arrested for breach of bail while looking for his daughter.
    86. Mr Titford was acquitted after being jailed for 3 months.
    87. Susan and her family were the Crown’s main witnesses against Mr Titford.
    88. Affidavits state the Police and Mr Titford’s Crown paid lawyer withheld evidence.
    89. Susan claimed Mr Titford claimed insurance for sinking his fishing boat.
    90. She claimed he sank it with an axe but the boat had a steel hull.
    91. Susan’s brother Richard accused Mr Titford of assaulting his son James.
    92. He accused Allan of punching James to the ground and jumping on this neck.
    93. Also kicking him with his steel capped boots when on the ground.
    94. Mr Titford was about 95 kilos and his son was 12 or 14 years of age.
    95. No medical records were produced of these vicious attacks.
    96. Surely there would be medical records if the offences really took place.
    97. Richard Cochrane, Susan’s brother has many convictions against his name.
    98. Mr Titford’s Crown’s paid lawyer did not allow one witness in Mr Titford’s defense.
    99. Susan accused Allan of rape, but no medical records or evidence were produced.
    100. It is stated Susan offered the children $5000 each if they would support her.
    101. Susan wanted to take control of the money and assets held by the Trusts
    102. Susan joins forces with Allan’s account and the Crown to take over the Trusts.
    103. The Crown with Allan’s accountant’s help, writes Allan out of the Trust.
    104. Allan’s bail conditions would not allow him to go within 250 klms of his farm.
    105. The Court orders the farm at Awanui, now in Trust to be sold.
    106. The value of the farm has drastically reduced due to Mr Titford’s bail conditions.
    107. Susan Cochrane will end up with the remaining assets and funds of the Trust.
    108. Mr Allan Titford, an innocent New Zealand farmer will rot in jail for 24 years.
    109. Once again the Crown has stolen Mr Titford’s assets, leaving him a broken man.
    110. Mr Allan Titford, New Zealand’s First Political Prisoner!

    The blame must be laid firmly at the Crown’s feet.

    The blame must be laid firmly at the Crown’s feet, Allan Titford bought a 1750-acre farm at Maunganui Bluff and the Crown issued him with “freehold title” to the land. This should have been the end of the story, but it was only the beginning of a very long sad story that lasted 25 years and saw Alan Titford jailed by the Crown for 24 years. The Crown is suppose to protect its citizens and their property but in this case the Crown destroyed 9 young peoples lives forever and those responsible must be brought to justice!

    I was at a meeting with Susan Cochrane/Titford and Minister John Carter after he found out there was a matrimonial dispute between Mr and Mrs Titford. The Minster promised Susan immunity if she would help the Crown and Police to lay charges against her husband to silence him over the “freehold titled” land the Crown stole from him to help settle Te Roroa’s “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim, a claim that had been rejected by Parliament in 1942 after a full judicial inquiry.

    Susan wrote to the Minister of Justice asking how she could evade being charged for Perjury. The Minster said if she could prove that she had been forced to lie then she would not be charge. Susan, her children and her brother then made out a list of charges they ‘dreamt up’ over the 25-years she had been married to her husband Allan Titford.

    The Crown then took over Susan’s list of charges, deleting some and adding many others then ‘grooming’ their witnesses to support each other at the trial. Remember this started as a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife that the Crown turned into a witch-hunt to silence Mr Titford for possibly the rest of his life for speaking out for his Human Rights.

    Both Allan and Susan Titford and their children need help as the ONZF and others have all the evidence to show the Crown used dubious methods to steal Mr Titford’s “freehold title” farm to help settle Te Roroa’s “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim and to also put Mr Titford behind bars for 24 years by using Susan Cochrane, her children and brother Richard.

    I am doubtful Susan and her children are telling the truth as I have spent a lot of time staying with them in Tasmania and New Zealand researching the claim and helping Allan on the farm and they have stayed with my wife and I on the Sunshine Coast. In all this time I have never seen any physical abuse to Susan, James or any of the children by Mr Titford. The verbal abuse is something completely different, but each gave as good as the other but that was it, there was never physical abuse of any nature.

    If Mr Titford did these terrible things he was charged with, then we believe there should be many of the Crown’s officials in jail with him as they were the cause of all this disruption to a young innocent farmer, his wife and his young family over a 23-year period.

    What happened to “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” in our country, we should all be extremely afraid until a re-trial is held where all the withheld evidence is open for public scrutiny and all those found guilty of corruption or withholding evidence, to swap places with Mr Titford. We believe Susan Cochrane and the children need help and Mr Titford a fair trial and compensation from the Crown for stealing his “freehold titled” land, pain and suffering and the loss of his family. Until Mr Titford gets a fair trial, the ONZF will never give up, we have all the evidence but without your help, the Crown’s officials will continue to use every available method they have at their disposal to stop Mr Titford from having a fair re-trial where all the evidence is heard.

    One of the most crucial aspects of a fair legal trial is the right to call witnesses on both sides, Mr Titford was never given this opportunity at his recent trial, the Crown made sure it never happened and he was unfairly jailed for 24 years by this “Kangaroo Court”.

    Allan Titford must have a retrial where all the evidence is open for public scrutiny!

    Compiled by Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc from document we have on file left by those involved since the beginning of this disgraceful treatment by the Crown of an innocent New Zealand Citizen and his young family. The Crown stole his “freehold titled” property “under duress” and “without legal advice” then “tampered with” the documents to help settle Te Roroa’s “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim, a claim that had been rejected by Parliament in 1942 after a full Court inquiry by Chief Judge Shepherd in 1939. 8/4/2014.
    This article may be copied in its entirety but not altered or modified in any way. (C)
    For information to substantiate this article, log onto: http://allantitford-politicalprisoner.com/wordpress/ or contact the One New Zealand Foundation Inc at email: ONZF@bigpond.com.au. We believe in fair justice for all the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed. 24/03/2014 (C).

  6. Sir Peter Tapsell and I were the closest of friends and no subject was off limits. Peter made is very clear that you cannot trust Maori saying:
    “they are at time very kind people but when it comes to protecting their own agenda they will fight to the death unless of course there is some money going into their own personal pockets and then they would sell their own family”

    Peter would also often say ” the great thing about corruption is you get certainty”

  7. This whole saga is appalling. Media would have us believe that N.Z. is free from corruption. What a laugh, but it is not funny. By co-incidence, tonight I will be attending the Auckland University for the launch of the book ‘Democracy In Decline’ by James Allen, and on Maori TV at 8.30pm. is John Pilger’s movie ‘The War On Democracy’. The truth is slowly coming out of the woodwork.

    1. You’ll enjoy Jim Allen, Peter – he’s right on-side. I went last night in Wellington.

      Mind you he was strangely reticent about binding referenda as the solution when I asked him how else to solve a problem that 80% of the population agree with but their elected government doesn’t.
      I pointed out that we’re only a democracy for 1 day every 995, and for the other 994 we’re a parliamentary dictatorship.

      Stephen Franks was offended by my use of the D word, but really what else do you call it when many National MPs don’t agree with Key’s Maori appeasement programme but meekly surrender to him for the sake of a quiet life?

  8. Maori TV along with all the Maori agencies I have dealt with have zero interest in the truth. Anyone from Maori TV who would like to take issue with me on this statement my email is spencermatakana@gmail.com and we
    can put this to the test.

    1. Treachery has been an accepted part of Maori affairs ever since Maui double-crossed his own mother.

      In war, many’s the tale of one tribe being welcomed into another’s pa under a flag of truce, only for the hosts to immediately renege on the deal and slaughter the guests.

      Honesty is a foreign concept to such people, a sign of weakness.

      But two can play at that game.

  9. Chris, Peter Tapsell would not get a tick in Allan’s experience. In Allan Titford’s words:

    “Tapsell wanted to know what I paid for the property when I bought it and said that I knew of a Maori claim before I bought the place. I told him I never knew about it until I bought it and it was his Government who created the problem.”

    http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/AllanandSusanvsTheWaitangiTribunal1.html

    This assertion also came up in the court trial when Allan’s brother-in-law, Adam (Piers Potter) testified:

    “When he bought the farm to our attention he told us that the farm was under claim and we said to him, ‘Well why are you buying it?’ and he turned around and said, ‘I want to be the first Pakeha to do a land claim.’ (p337)

    Of course, he could be making stuff up, and Tapsell might have been mislead.

    1. To the best of my knowledge, Allan Titford, when he bought the two adjoining Maunganui Bluff farms in October and November 1986, wouldn’t even have known who Adam Potter was.

      Allan wasn’t even married yet when he purchased the property and certainly had no knowledge, whatsoever, that any kind of claim had been lodged against a small part of a farm title.

      Also, Adam Potter is not, technically, a brother-in-law to Allan. Adam is married to Susan’s sister and is an arch-enemy to Allan.

      I’ll check with Allan about this accusation.

      I can only conclude that this is just more of the false testimony concocted by or for Susan’s family group, under the direction (coaching?) of certain vested interests.

      Those interests in government or the grievance-industry would dearly love to have it established in the minds of the public that Allan recklessly entered into the purchase with full knowledge that there was a claim lodged against the land.

      Allan certainly had no knowledge of any claim in late 1986, nor did any other authorities amidst the council, Rural bank or real-estate individuals, etc., he consulted with when doing his pre-purchase investigations.

      1. Hi Lindsay,
        I checked with Allan Titford today and he said he met Adam Potter for the very first time in June 1988 at shearing time.

        I also checked the reference you gave in the transcript of last year’s courtcase and, obviously, Adam Potter isn’t referring to a purchase that is going to happen in the future, but one already in progress, as in weekly payments to the bank in the normal process of mortgage payments.

  10. Why if the titford family knew since 2011 that te roroa had nothing to do with the arson wait until jan 2014 to say something. And then only in support of titford. And why wait until january 2014. Wasnt his trial in september 2013

    1. Civil: Sheryll Titford (wife of Allan’s brother Brian) was, and possibly still is, a good friend of Sue Titford/Cochrane and has never seen eye-to-eye with Allan.

      Nevertheless, when she saw that Allan had been accused by Sue and convicted of burning down his and Sue’s house, presuming for reasons of conscience she felt she had to do the right thing and tell the police that she had witnessed Sue telling her of Sue’s father’s deathbed confession that he, Graham Cochrane, had committed the arson.

      Though Allan is reported as having blamed the arson on Te Roroa – and may have done so initially – he later expressed the view that he did not think the iwi would have done it.

      Even less likely is why he would have wanted to burn down a house on which, thanks to all the threats he had received, he was not able to obtain any insurance.

      Sue would have us believe it was for sympathy. The destruction of one’s family’s home and lifelong posessions with no prospect of replacement is a very high price to pay for a bit of sympathy.

  11. So why didnt the titford family alert anyone in 2007 that they had evidence that te roroa had not done the arson. And having had a read through one of the affadavits is pointless. Its ” she heard from so and so that this other person had said….” I dont know if that would be counted as evidence.

    1. Maybe Sue Cochrane/Titford would like to answer that, since she reads this blog.

      Certainly Allan had no knowledge until this year of her father’s deathbed confession, let alone the fact that his wife and daughter had witnessed it.

      He had initially concluded, quite logically given the shooting of his stock and other violence from tribe members like the late Hughie Te Rore, that Te Roroa had been responsible.

      But he later expressed doubts about the tribe’s involvement, which appear to have been proved correct.

      I find it interesting that Te Roroa seem to think the most important injustice arising from Sue’s revelation is how they have been falsely accused.

      Surely of vastly more important concern is that Allan has been falsely convicted.

      Surely

  12. I wouldnt ask Sue, as she isnt the one saying it happened. Titfords sister in law and Aunt say it happened. And they perhaps owe Te Roroa a massive apology for keeping that information “underwraps”, until they tried to use it as a “Titford defence”. Inherent dishonesty…..

    1. A man is rotting in prison for 24 years and you think the priority is to apologise to a bunch of thugs who launched a bogus claim to a bogus court, shot his stock and threatened him for years, aided and abetted by corrupt police.

      Sue has already apologised to them because she knows her dad burned down the house. Allan did not know that, or even suspect it I don’t think.

      It would have been entirely understandable if he suspected the same people who shot his stock and threatened to kill him. Wouldn’t you?

      Don’t you think Te Roroa ought to be apologising to him?

      1. The man has been convicted of multiple serious heinous crimes. His family have been hiding the truth for 7 years. Truth you apparently believe or you wouldnt be touting the affadavits. Allowing other parties to be held responsible for this crime of arson. Are you so sure te roroa shot his stock? I wouldnt be. Sounds like none of them can get their stories straight. When is his appeal? Surely with all of this “new” evidence it must be in the offing?

      2. What he needs is a retrial, not an appeal. A trial where he has a proper lawyer, and is allowed to call witnesses.

        You are right about his family hiding the truth – his wife and the kids she has bribed and brainwashed. They’re lying low, because there’s nothing they can say – except, of course, that they’re going to sue people like me when “the truth comes out”.

        How many times have we heard guilty people lashing out with diversions like that?

        Can I be absolutely be sure Te Roroa shot Allan’s stock? No, I can’t be absolutely sure of anything, being hundreds of miles away at the time. But Sue and Allan both say they did – and they don’t agree on much.

        Can you be sure they didn’t? The police were instructed to side with Te Roroa every time Allan complained about their thuggery, leaving Sue and Allan with no protection from their numerous threats.

        Now we know that Sue’s dad burned down their house, as the only way he could think of of getting his daughter out of what he saw as a life-threatening situation.

        Why would he have done that unless the iwi were a real danger to Allan and Sue?

        There is one other possibility. Sue’s brother Dennis, when I told him that his father had confessed to torching the house, said words to the effect of “I don’t know about Dad, but I wouldn’t put it past Sue to have done it herself.”

        Allan is not alleging that Sue is blaming her father for a crime she committed herself, but talking to him on Saturday, this formerly completely trusting husband is staggered by the depth of his ex-wife’s scheming, and is not ruling anything out.

  13. I saw the interview and was totally disgusted as to me it was a propaganda show. They were only interested in 2 things and that was, did Te Roroa burn down the Titford home and rubbishing the ‘Littlewood’ Treaty as the final draft. Annette Sykes was a very rude arrogant shrill shrew and should have been stopped as she just talked over John to prevent him getting anything more across.

    I couldn’t believe that not once did the interviewer show any concern that one of Allan Titford’s supposed crimes was that he burned his house down. What a scoop for them to now pursue this if they had any integrity. In view of what those dreadful people (criminals in fact) did to the Titford family over many years, I can quite understand him blaming them at first for the fire. It also goes to show how desperate his father-in-law must have been to get the family to a safer place that he would go to such lengths.

    I comment John for going in there in support of Allan Titford knowing full well that they would pull some trick for sure. At least he got some information out there and let’s hope it leads to more exposure of the dreadful treatment Allan Titford has received, not only from Te Roroa but later from the Crown and our supposed Justice system. Injustice more like.

    As for the rubbishing of the “Littlewood’ treaty all one has to do, if they speak Maori, is read the Maori version and then the Littlewood one. They say exactly the same thing. If they can’t speak Maori then still read the Littlewood one and it will tell you exactly what the former said!! Easy really.

  14. You do realise the affadavits are pointless. Its like me saying , I heard from so and so that bob said he did it. It means nothing to anyone. It looks and smells like lies. 7 years too late. And yes te roroa definitely deserve an apology.

    1. The whole case was like that, civil. All 39 convictions were based on testimonies from people who stood to gain from getting Allan locked up, and their associates.

      Sheryll Titford was a friend of Sue’s who had nothing to gain but a clear conscience, and a friendship to lose, from telling the truth. Her motive was the opposite of those who lied to put Allan away. She didn’t like Allan, yet told the truth to try to get him out.

      Sue has not commented on Sheryll’s affidavit, knowing that the only way to get herself off the hook is to call her friend a liar.

      I heard this morning from Allan’s former neighbour Don Harrison that he was woken on the night of the fire by a phone call from Sue’s mother in Hikurangi telling him that Sue and Allan’s house was on fire. How did she know? It now seems likely her husband told her – because he lit the fire.

  15. When you find one lie, it then makes you suspect other statements. I do hope something can come of this fire business in Allan Titford’s favour. The whole case stinks to high heaven the more I hear about it.

    Civil, I think you will be surprised at how many people can verify the criminal acts done to Allan and his family by Te Roroa. I would say they were in fear of their lives for much of the time – and the Police did nothing of note. There are a lot of questions that need proper answers. A proper re-trial is the only way to get them. Allan deserves at least that.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s