Alex Nathan, Allan Titford, Iulia Leilua, Maori TV, Mihingarangi Forbes, Mike Butler, Native Affairs, Paul Moon, Ranginui Walker, Te Roroa

How to complain to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – Mike Butler

I love it when Maori TV tries to ambush me and present me as a racist for demanding racial equality.

Each time they do this, we get a little more evidence that helps to convince honest, fair-minded Maori that their ignorant, one-eyed cousins are giving them a bad name.

Most helpfully, the radicals’ rants don’t just unsettle some of their own supporters and enrage all of ours. They also appal and convert lots of mild-mannered neutrals.

My live debate with Annette Sykes and the heckling partisan so-called ‘moderator’ Mihingarangi Forbes has opened a new front for us: a flurry of complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

One of these I’ll be posting shortly, a complaint about last Monday’s Native Affairs from a teacher.

But here now is a complaint about the previous week’s Native Affairs, from former newspaper sub-editor and author of the new book Tribes–Treaty–Money–Power, Mike Butler.

Mike is also preparing a complaint about last week’s show, but first things first.

It would be most helpful, dear readers, if you would each consider lodging your own complaint about each of the last two programmes.

Bureaucrats respond to numbers, and this state-funded racist channel needs to get the message that there is a difference between criticism and racism, and that they can’t get away with unfairly smearing people like Allan Titford, Martin Doutre and me.

Tying them up replying to numerous complaints, and having to provide redress for their bias, should help them in their quest to understand the meaning of balance. 🙂


Native Affairs BSA complaint


Date: May 26, 2014
To: Paora Maxwell,
Chief Executive,
Maori TV
PO Box 113-017
Auckland 1149


From:   Mike Butler,
[phone number]
[email address]


Re:       Broadcasting Standards Authority complaint about What lies beneath

The Native Affairs item titled What lies beneath that aired on Monday, May 12, 2014, revisited the long story of Northland farmer Allan Titford who bought land at Maunganui Bluff in 1986 for $600,000 and was subjected to a squatter protest from 1987 during a Waitangi Tribunal claim for part of his land.

Titford had no interest in treaty claim matters until a group of bullying hostile protesters occupied his land and wrecked his business.

The occupation, that included two house fires, verbal abuse, stock thefts, intimidation, vandalism, trespass, cutting fences so that stock would wander, shooting stock, sabotaging Titford’s bulldozer, threatening with a gun, assault, looting, stalled a subdivision project and meant he could not refinance or repay a two-year mortgage.

Eventually, Titford sold the farm to the government for $3.225-million in 1995. Little was heard of the issue until last year when a matrimonial dispute resulted in Titford being jailed for 24 years.

One count he was found guilty of was for burning down his house.

What lies beneath is built around an interview with Alex Nathan of Te Roroa.

In the intro, presenter Mihingarangi Forbes set the scene by saying when Titford “accused the Northland iwi, Te Roroa of being greedy Maori who were after his land”, the country rallied behind him.

Te Roroa, he said, were violent terrorists who burned down his home”.

She went on to say: “Fourteen years later the truth came out – it was Allan Titford who burnt his house down – but some media and lobby groups continue to support him”.

Reporter Iulia Leilua’s 20-minute two-part feature could leave an open-minded viewer thinking that Titford was finally exposed as evil, that Te Roroa claimants were wronged innocents, and that there exists a shadowy but well-funded very right wing conspiracy out to deny Maori of rights.

This complaint shows that What lies beneath was a biased and inaccurate presentation of the Maunganui Bluff land claim issue, that included unfair treatment of protagonist Allan Titford, along with racist and derogatory treatment of his supporters.

The feature breached standards four, five, six, and seven of the broadcasting code.

1. Failed to present significant viewpoints on controversial issues

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is quite clear under Standard 4 – Controversial Issues – Viewpoints that when discussing controversial issues of public importance in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view, either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.


a) Guideline 4a says significant viewpoints should be presented fairly in the context of the programme.

What lies beneath presented in the intro what Maori TV presenters considered was the mainstream view 22 years ago, after July 4, 1992, when the Titford house burned to the ground.

That view was that Northland iwi Te Roroa were “greedy Maori who were after his land”, who were also “violent terrorists who burned down his home”.

What lies beneath also outlined in the intro the current viewpoint of Maori TV presenters, that “14 years later the truth came out – it was Allan Titford who burnt his house down – but some media and lobby groups continue to support him”.

Two opposing viewpoints were presented in What lies beneath but Maori TV presented the viewpoint it disagreed with in a hostile, pejorative manner, meaning that the viewpoint was not presented fairly.


b) A further assessment of whether a reasonable range of views has been presented is described in guideline 4b, which asks whether the programme approaches a topic from a particular perspective.

Maori TV claims to design its programming to deliver a Maori perspective.

It appears that presenters believe that by presenting What lies beneath from the viewpoint of Te Roroa, with Titford being non-Maori they would fulfil the “Maori perspective” role of Maori TV.

However, ifLeilua had asked a few more questions, listened, and looked further, she would have quickly found that Titford’s now estranged wife has Ngapuhi ancestry, and that Ngapuhi leader the late Graham Rankin appealed to the Minister of Treaty Negotiations, Margaret Wilson, to help the Titford family.

Rankin’s view was that the Titfords had been unlawfully dispossessed of their farm at Maunganui Bluff, Northland. [1]

For Maori TV to argue that equating the Te Roroa claim with a Maori perspective fails to understand that part of the dispute over land at Maunganui Bluff was a clash between Te Roroa and Ngapuhi.

As a result of the Battle of Te Ikaranganui in 1825 Ngapuhi dominance over the area was achieved.

Te Roroa were allowed to stay in the area under the protection of Parore Te Awha of Ngapuhi, whose name was on the Maunganui block sale deed.

Tiopira Kinaki, the other vendor named on the 1876 sale deed, was Te Roroa.

The Titford farm and the area on it claimed by Te Roroa were included in the 1876 Maunganui block sale. [2]

2. Failed to be accurate on all points of fact

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is also clear, under Standard 5 Accuracy, that broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is (1) accurate on all points of fact, and/or (2) does not mislead.


a) Forbes in the intro incorrectly said: “fourteen years later the truth came out – it was Allan Titford who burnt his house down”.

In fact the house fire occurred on July 4, 1992, which was 22 years ago, not 14 years as Forbes said.

But more importantly, Titford was found guilty of burning his house, an allegation he continues to deny, and a conviction he plans to appeal or seek a retrial on.

Therefore, the truth or falsity of the statement “Allan Titford … burnt his house down” remains unknown except to the perpetrator.

Moreover, viewers were not made aware of the existence of two sworn statements that cast reasonable doubt on Titford’s guilt regarding the arson.

Reporter Leilua was given copies of these affidavits and had all details explained to her, but there was no reference to this in the final edit.

These affidavits existed at the time of Titford’s trial, but were not introduced as evidence.

Ansell recorded footage of the actual interviews because earlier biased treatment at the hands of Maori TV prompted him to take a cameraman along, something that reporter Leilua strenuously objected to. [3]


b) Reporter Leilua said: “By 1876 nearly 90,000 acres of Te Roroa land had been bought by the Crown. However, Te Roroa disputed the inclusion of urupa, reserves, and the lake in the sale arguing that there had been a mistake in the survey”.

The land area quoted by Leilua was incorrect. The Maunganui block upon which the Titford farm was located, was 37,592 acres and the Waipoua block 35,300 acres giving a total of 72,892 acres, which is more than 17,000 acres short of Leilua’s sweeping guess.

Leilua was incorrect to characterize that land as solely belonging to Te Roroa. The Maunganui block was awarded to both Tiopira Kinaki of Te Roroa and Parore Te Awha of Ngapuhi.

Leilua was incorrect to imply Te Roroa at the time disputed the inclusion of urupa, reserves, and the lake. The only dispute at the time of the sale was the Alleged Improper Sale Inquiry 1876 prompted by Tiopira Kinaki when he discovered that Parore Te Awha received an extra £500.

This was nothing to do with what was included in the sale.

Leilua failed to say that the first appearance of a claim for that land, known as Manuwhetai, and another area on a neighbouring farm known as Whangaiariki, was in 1899, after both vendors and all involved in the 1876 sale had died.

Neither did she say that the claim was rejected at that time.

Leilua did not mention a special sitting of the Native Land Court investigating a claim for Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki held in Kaihu in 1939.

Neither did she mention a recommendation by Chief Judge G.P. Shepherd to parliament 1942 that:

  • The only reserve in the Maunganui block provided for in the 1876 sale was a 250-acre eel fishery reserve known as Taharoa for vendor Parore Te Awha;
  • Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not mentioned in the deed of sale;
  • Neither were they mentioned in the inquiry into the sale held in 1876;
  • The sale deed had a certificate to show that vendors Parore Te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki understood the terms of the sale;
  • The deed had a certificate to show no fraud had taken place;
  • A memo dated February 12, 1876, confirmed that Parore got Taharoa. [4]

Leilua did not say that nothing further was heard of this claim until 1987, after the Waitangi Tribunal was empowered to investigate claims all the way back to 1840, and when Titford began advertising sections in his coastal subdivision.

Leilua did not look into the evidence Te Roroa cited to support their view that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were left out of the sale because of a mistake in a survey.

Te Roroa claimants cited Plan 3297/8 as “proof” that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki had been taken in error by the Crown.

Apparently unaware of Te Roroa reasoning for their claim, Leilua did not look into facts around that purported evidence.

Titford found that Plan 3297/8 was created by surveyors Barnard and Stephens for a landowner named Wi Pou, of the Ngaitu hapu, as part of a proposal to buy from the government two reserves on the south side of Maunganui Bluff.

Those reserves were to be named Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.

Plan 3297/8 remained in government files as a record of a proposal that did not proceed.


c) Leilua said: “Under a National government in 1995, after rejecting numerous offers, Allan Titford finally sold his land to the Crown for five times more than he paid”.

While it is true that the sale price of $3.225-million is about 5.3 times the purchase price, Leilua did not say that the $3.225-million included 1450 head of stock valued at $750,000 and plant at $50,000.

Neither did she say that out of the $3.225-million, $1.8 million went to the National Bank and $425,000 went to other creditors.

Therefore, Titford was left with $200,000 for land he paid $600,000 for nine years earlier

Leilua collected a comment from academic Ranginui Walker who alleged Titford made “a huge profit”. Far from “a huge profit”, Titford came out $400,000 behind after working nine years for nothing and facing bullying from claimants, inaction by police, and stonewalling by the government.


d) Guideline 5c says news must be impartial.

The selection of sources for What lies beneath, and the extra time allowed to those supporting the theme of the feature, was far from impartial. Bias appeared in the number and frequency of comments for either Titford or Te Roroa.

For Titford, Ansell was the sole representative and featured in a single, highly selective interview. Doutré, who has supported Titford elsewhere, spoke entirely about evidence for Celtic New Zealand. Former MP Ross Meurant spoke for Titford in old footage. Newman’s single comment was neither about Titford nor Te Roroa.

For Te Roroa, claimant Alex Nathan spoke six times, Taua spoke four times, Ranginui Walker spoke twice, and Moon spoke once.


3. Failed to be fair

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is also clear, under Standard 6 – Fairness, that broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to.

The word “fair” means “treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination”.

For the purpose of guideline 6a, What lies beneath was aired on a current affairs programme, a genre that is expected to be factual.

The feature breached Standard 6 – Fairness in two ways:


a) Fair coverage of the Titford/Te Roroa saga would present known facts on both sides of the dispute.

Instead, after jumping to the conclusion that Titford did burn down his house, reporter Leilua recorded Nathan saying: “We knew that we were right”, and subsequent comments were collected to support this view.

Evidence that raised reasonable doubt as to whether Titford started the fire, such as two sworn statements indicating another party had admitted responsibility, was ignored.

This stacking of comments to support the pre-conceived view of both the reporter and the presenter breaches standard 6, guideline 6a, which requires fairness in a factual programme.


b) Apparently assuming that Titford burnt his house down and blamed Te Roroa, when reporter Leilua was given two sworn statements creating a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of that assumption, Leilua ignored the affidavits and edited out of the final cut any reference to them by interviewee John Ansell.

This breaches standard 6, guideline 6b, which requires broadcasters to exercise care in editing programme material to ensure that the extracts used are not a distortion of the overall views expressed. [5]


4. Encouraged discrimination and denigration

Under Standard 7 – Discrimination and Denigration, broadcasters should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

The word “discrimination” refers to making “an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age”.

The word “denigration” means casting “aspersions on, decry, criticize unfairly, attack, speak ill of, speak badly of, blacken the character of, blacken the name of, give someone a bad name, sully the reputation of, or spread lies about”.

What lies beneath breaches Standard 7 because it encourages discrimination against and seeks to denigrate those who criticize the divisiveness of race-based affirmative action and treaty politics.

An encouragement to discriminate against those who criticise treaty politics and race-based affirmative action appeared in the intro to Part 2 of What lies beneath, when presenter Mihingarangi Forbes described Titford supporters as “people who were anti-treaty and anti-Maori, many of whom used their money, time, and connections to push their political agendas”.

The only evidence of support by wealthy individuals of critics of treatyism was an assertion that “rich-lister Alan Gibbs” backed the New Zealand Centre for Political Research that pushes against race-based special treatment.

The feature was silent on the existence of the network of multi-millionaire neo-tribal groups known as the Iwi Leaders Group that pushes for race-based special treatment.

Denigration of those who criticise treaty politics and race-based affirmative action appeared in the title What lies beneath, which captured an implication of a sinister pervasive racist undercurrent, with those drawing attention to the divisiveness of treaty politics castigated as racist.

Smearing a person with the allegation that he or she is racist appears intended to silence debate because it is based on the assumption that no right-minded person would want to speak out for fear of being called a racist.

The denigration of critics of treatyism as racist is in itself racist.


Remedy sought


Native Affairs staff members have shown an ability to investigate complex stories while asking hard questions. So why did they not do so in this 20-minute two-part feature that aired on Monday, May 12?

Errors in this feature may be remedied by a 20-minute clip on Native Affairs that includes:


1. An interview with someone who knows the details of the impact of the occupation at Maunganui Bluff on the Titfords, and the background of the Te Roroa claim for Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.


2. An interview with Alex Nathan that asks:

a) Is it not true that on August 7, 1987, squatters moved on to the beach part of the section in force and erected signs to frighten away any prospective buyers.

b) Is it not true that on August 16, 1987, Hughie Te Rore and Huia White told Titford that if he gave them the land they would drop their tribunal claim.

c) Is it not true that on December 5, 1987, at 1.15pm, Hughie Te Rore and Huia White arrived at the house and said that if Titford removed the buildings used by squatters they would take revenge within 24 hours and it would be nationwide news.

d) Is it not true that on January 12, 1988, a group of claimants in a green Toyota Corona shot stock in Titford’s paddock. Claimants also arranged for the Historic Places Trust to come in and make the site a sacred area.

e) Is it not true that on January 20, 1988, claimants erected a large carved pole on Titford’s land, an event that local councillors, local non-Maori, Maori Marsden, and TVNZ reporters attended.

f) Is it not true that on March 22, 1988, claimant Hugh Te Rore had Conservation Department archaeologist Leigh Johnson (Mr) visit Titford’s farm. Johnson told Titford he had permission to be there from landowner Hugh Te Rore. Johnson also told Titford that the area was from then on wahi tapu and a reserve.


3. An interview with Ranginui Walker that asks:

a) Is it not true that the $3.225-million the government paid for the Titford farm included 1450 head of stock valued at $750,000 and plant at $50,000?

b) Is it not true that out of the $3.225-million purchase price, $1.8 million went to the National Bank and $425,000 went to other creditors?

c) Is it not true that Titford was left with $200,000 for land he paid $600,000 for nine years earlier?

d) Do you still stand by your comments that Titford made “a huge profit” out of the sale of his farm?


4. An interview with historian Paul Moon that asks:

a) Is it not true that as an historian, past events and old documents are your stock in trade?

b) Therefore, based on your expertise in past events and old documents, is it not true that the only reserve in the Maunganui block provided for in the 1876 sale was a 250-acre eel fishery reserve known as Taharoa for vendor Parore Te Awha?

c) Is it not true that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not mentioned in the 1876 deed of sale?

d) Is it not true that neither were mentioned in the inquiry into the sale held in 1876?

e) Is it not true that the sale deed had a certificate to show that vendors Parore Te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki understood the terms of the sale?

f) Is it not true that the deed had a certificate to show no fraud had taken place?

g) Is it not true that a memo dated February 12, 1876, confirmed that Parore got Taharoa?

h) Is it not true that the first appearance of a claim for land known as Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki was in 1899, after both vendors and all involved in the 1876 sale had died?

i) Is it not true that Plan 3297/8 was created by surveyors Barnard and Stephens for a landowner named Wi Pou, of the Ngaitu hapu, as part of a proposal to buy from the government two reserves on the south side of Maunganui Bluff. Those reserves were to be named Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki?

j) Is it not true that Plan 3297/8 remained in government files as a record of a proposal that did not proceed?


[1] Graham Rankin, Letter, June 4, 2001.

[2] The Sale of Maunganui-Waipoua, The Te Roroa Report 1992.

[3] See John Ansell’s recorded footage of the actual interviews see

[4] Native Purposes Act 1938.——-10–1——0–

[5] See John Ansell’s recorded footage of the actual interviews see

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.

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

Doutre and Ansell on Native Affairs, 8.30pm tonight

From 6.00am on the morning of the autumn equinox, 21 March (my birthday as it happens), Martin Doutre and I stood on the summit of Mt Albert with a film crew from Maori TV waiting for the sun to rise.

It did so on the other side of Auckland, in a trench which Martin said had been cut by the Patuparaiehe people to line up the equinoxial sunrise with the standing stone that we were standing beside. Cloud unfortunately obscured the event, which Martin has recorded on other occasions.

We then went down to Stanley Street to film Martin with some giant boulders which had been removed from a hill in Silverdale, and which had for thousands of years before that performed a similar astronomical role.

On a bench nearby I was filmed talking about Martin, and also about the Allan Titford case — the main reason I had made the journey from Wellington.

I thought I’d make the Titford interview more newsworthy by presenting the reporter with the two affidavits revealing that Sue Titford-Cochrane’s father had confessed to burning down Allan and Sue’s Maunganui Bluff home, not Allan, as Sue testified in Court.

We’ll see how much of this makes it to air tonight at 8.30pm. Given the media’s record so far, let’s say I’m not overly confident.




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.
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,

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,

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,

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.

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.


1 JANUARY 2014

To whom it may concern. 


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,



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.

Allan Titford, Martin Doutre, Sue Titford (Cochrane)

Sue Titford’s diary casts doubt on 2009 rape

Allan Titford - 7 July 2009 Raped v Pushed out of bedSue 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…


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.

You wrote:

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.

Martin Doutre


That’s two of the three rapes that may not have happened.

So, did the third?

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

Allan Titford, Alyssa Titford (Cochrane), James Titford (Cochrane), Martin Doutre, Sue Titford (Cochrane)

Evidence of Titford kids lying, stealing, pushing drugs and having under-age sex while in Sue’s care

What follows is an email and affidavit from longstanding friend of both Allan and Sue Titford, Martin Doutré.

The first line of Martin’s email refers to TVNZ’s Sunday programme of last week — a predictable state hatchet job, but one in which the children looked far from convincing.

Read this and learn why.


From: Martin Doutré
To: John Ansell
Date: Tuesday 3 December, 2013

Hi John,

If that was  a sober and drug-free James on the [TV on Sunday] night, then he’s a hell of a lot dumber than he used to be. The lights have certainly dimmed significantly in 3 years.

Perhaps he thought he needed a bit of “Dutch courage” to face the TV interview ordeal. He did not look or sound like the James I knew so well over the years, but more like a zombie. He was utterly away with the fairies and spoke like a complete retard, slurring his speech and having obvious difficulty saying anything meaningful or coherent.

What happened was that, between about the beginning of 2006 onwards, Allan was really, mostly, an absentee dad, rarely at home.

From January 2006 through to mid-July he was mostly on the road with me and Ross Baker, following the Treaty 2 U propaganda roadshow around the country.

The same holds true for the summer to autumn months of 2007.

Susan and the kids had ways of letting him know that they liked it better when he was away, and consequently he was often over at the Kaikohe farm or down country looking at vintage cars or whatever.

For the most-part, Susan ran the farm and household, but for long spells outsiders were paid to come in and do the milking, like Mr. Flay, a neighbour on nearby Kumi Road, or various others.

Also, a digger contractor called Barry was working almost full time, for seemingly several years,  on cutting miles of drains.

Allan did only one milking per day, in the afternoon around 3:30 pm. There was never, in my memory, any necessity for anyone to be up at 5 am and out in the milk-shed.

I stayed at the house many times over the years and everyone got up at the normal, expected hours on school-days. Susan got up the earliest and began rustling up breakfast for the kids and preparing school lunches, aided by the older girls.

The kids were out the door and down the drive to meet the bus just after 8 am or so. All were well dressed and scrubbed up, sporting flash, designer-type school bags. They certainly never looked like impoverished kids.

Alyssa, when she was about 15-16 claimed she was being bullied at school in Kaitaia and asked to stay at home and do her courses by correspondence school. A lot of the so-called bullying was, from memory, text-harassment that came through her phone.

Being a tall, strong girl I know she was capable of taking very good care of herself and, at one time, beat up a boy who was picking on James.

I’m quite sure the real reason she quit school is because she simply couldn’t be bothered going.

She enrolled in the correspondence school course and, for a time, did her lessons at the dining room table for an hour or two a day, which, from my memory, seemed to be sufficient to get through all the assignments.

James, who hated school and wanted to escape the daily drudgery of catching the bus, also managed to talk his parents into completing his education by correspondence.

His excuse for home-schooling was also bullying.

Allan, as I recall, was very much against the kids leaving school but, because of his very frequent absence from home and hearth, the older kids got their way by browbeating Susan into agreeing.

It would be interesting to go into their school records to see how many correspondence school assignments they bothered to complete.

If the onus was on anyone to monitor them and make sure the assignments were done, then that task fell on Susan, who was always there, whereas Allan was so-often absent for long spells.

Susan had, seemingly, full access to the bank account and spent large sums each week  on food or domestic necessities.

This business about them all being slaves and working until 10 pm at night is rubbish.

The milking was finished by about 5 pm and Susan, Alyssa & James had the cows back in the fields and were cleaned up by dinner time.

The girls pitched in to prepare the evening meal and then everyone sat around the lounge eating dinner, with plates in their laps, watching TV for a few hours.

Of all the group, Susan’s hours on the job were the longest, mainly due to being the first up in the morning and the last to get to bed at night after the rest of the brood were bedded down.

She often did typing for Allan in the evenings or during the day and had a very full schedule, but also leisure time and long spells of playing electronic games with the kids or reading to them or looking at stuff on Trade Me with them.

There were also the endless nappies to change and babies to hold and cater for.

The daughters Ulanda and Shiane pitched in a lot taking care of the little ones.

Ross Baker and I agreed wholeheartedly that Susan had a very heavy, unenviable schedule, but a huge part of the burden related to her having (by 2009) seven children.

That was a lifestyle choice that she chose herself. She wanted seven kids.

I don’t agree that the lack of accomplishment by these older kids is solely Allan’s fault and the largest contributing factor for the failure falls on the kids themselves, who schemed to drop out of school and then couldn’t be bothered following a daily routine of doing their home assignments.

They certainly had ample time available to fulfil those assignments on a daily basis, but opted to do other things instead.

By 2011, Alyssa was well known for pushing drugs in the North, according to a digger-driver mate of mine, Ian Pyke.

By that time Allan had been out of the picture for 18 months or more.

Just before the split, Allan told me that Alyssa was going to do a course to enter the hotel or hospitality industry as a tour guide or the like, and he had aspirations and high hopes for her in that regard.

However, she didn’t have the self-discipline to follow it through, and decided to run wild and go badly off the rails instead when beyond the jurisdiction and control of her father.

She apparently settled for being a thief and drug user and pusher instead, if the reports from people in the know in the North are correct.

When she’s accused of things or caught out, she smiles or hides behind a smile … very strange … a real smiling assassin.

Best wishes,




I have been asked to make an account of events that transpired between Saturday 17 July and, ostensibly, 29 July 2010 related to my association and experiences with Tyler Jackson, Alyssa Cochrane (née Titford) and James Cochrane (né Titford).

As a result of these events and my subsequent devolution of critical and worrisome facts to Allan Titford (father of Alyssa and James), he phoned Susan Cochrane, his estranged wife and mother of Alyssa and James.

17 JULY 2010

At approximately 9:15 pm I received a phone call at home from Alyssa, asking for my assistance.

She was at a car stranded in the suburb of Glen Eden, Auckland.

I knew already that she, her boyfriend and James were in Auckland, as they’d asked my son Alain for money earlier in the day and had called by his flat.

He had refused to give them any more money as he’d already given James funds earlier in the week, when told that James needed gas money to get him and Alyssa home to Hikurangi.

James said in a text message, on the earlier occasion, that they had come down to Auckland seeking work and that there was a milking job going at Tokoroa to look at.

On this very frosty night of 17 July 2010, I called my son Gene to return from the city and pick me up, as we needed to tow James’s car home to safe circumstances.

We went to the fairly seedy location and found the stranded car at a BP service station.

We towed the car home to [MARTIN’S ADDRESS], arriving at about midnight.

Beds were made up at Gene’s place down the back of my farmlet, where the weary trio spent the night.

18 JULY 2010

We put James’s Nissan Laurel into a sunny spot and commenced working on it to find and check the fuel pump.

My son Gene tested all of the electrical connections to the fuel pump with a multi-meter and found them to be working, but the internals of the pump were dead.

Gene also drove Alyssa and Tyler to Kumeu to borrow money from one of Tyler’s ex-girlfriends.

James and I inspected the fuel pump on a spare Nissan car that I have, but found it to be too small to fit his much larger Nissan Laurel.

During the first day of staying at my place, Alyssa and Tyler told me how they’d been virtually forced out of the house at Hikurangi.

They enumerated their ongoing, intolerable domestic problems as:

  • The constant interference in the family affairs of Susan’s father (Graeme Cochrane) and uncle (Richard Cochrane), who were at the house seemingly every day making demands and intimidating everyone or being very controlling.
  • James complained that his grandfather or uncle threatened to beat him up on frequent occasions or were argumentative.
  • Tyler complained that Susan, Graham and Richard didn’t like him and that he was made to feel very unwelcome.
  • He also complained about the confrontational attitude of another man living at the house called Gene, who was about 26, but who had been sleeping in the same bed as Ulanda (Allan & Susan’s second eldest daughter), since she was just 13-years old.
  • Tyler mentioned that he would never do such a thing, but that because Gene was Uncle Richard’s friend both Graeme and Richard turned a blind-eye to this statutory rape of a minor.
  • Alyssa made a similar complaint to her great-aunt Aileen (Allan’s aunt) on the evening of 26 July 2010.
  • Alyssa also complained to me about the confrontational attitude coming from Gene and Ulanda and the constant scrapping.
  • After she was at my home for a day or so, she received a phone call from Ulanda stating that she and Gene were taking over Alyssa’s bedroom, and there was also some kind of altercation concerning Alyssa’s TV.
  • Alyssa and Tyler said that Gene was a low-life who had stolen all of the heavy cast-iron wheels and other vintage cast-iron ornaments out of the landlord’s garden at the Hikurangi home and sold them for scrap for $20.
  • Tyler said he had far more integrity than Gene, but that Susan and the others had turned against him, forcing him out and shunting him on.

During the day both Alyssa and Tyler convinced me that they were making a clean break and would begin a life together as farm workers, milking cows.

I knew that Alyssa had tremendous talent and training in that regard and assumed that Tyler was similarly trained-up and capable.

They represented themselves as an ambitious young couple trying to get a start in life, but encountering a few present mechanical-financial problems that were holding up the process.

I determined that I would help them get on their feet as best I could.

18 JULY 2010

Tyler asked me if he could work out a deal with me for a very nice, but deregistered, Nissan Avenir station wagon I had sitting in storage.

He said it would be perfect for their job-hunting around outlying farms, as they could sleep in the back.

James was running them around for the moment, but needed to get back to the North.

Tyler said he had worked as a car certifier and still had contacts in the industry that could do the certification.

I tentatively agreed, but would discuss the matter in more detail after thinking about it.

In the evening of 18 July 2010, Allan Titford called me, but I gave no indication that his children were at my home, as I had been sworn to silence by Alyssa not to tell either Allan or Susan of their whereabouts.

19 JULY 2010

Returned from work and gave Alyssa $20 for some basic supplies.

My son Gene was hooking up James’s car to haul it to a distant garage before it closed where it would be fixed by Tyler’s mate sometime later in the week.

Gene had already torn the guts out of his own car and clutch getting this very heavy Nissan Laurel home and I advised against it, especially in peak hour traffic.

All they needed was a fuel pump and the relatively easy repair could be done at home within a couple of hours once we had the parts.

Tyler purchased some parts through a mate, but when they arrived they were found to be wrong.

I took Alyssa to The Warehouse and bought her some urgently needed supplies, as well as other items.

I later got onto my digger and pulled my white 1995 Nissan Avenir up to the workshop in preparation of going over it mechanically and cleaning it up for Alyssa and Tyler.

We had started it up and it ran very nicely, but the sticking clutch cylinder needed replacement. We water blasted the car and put internal trim and fittings back in place. The little station wagon came up looking very nice.

Allan Titford - Alyssa and Tyler cleaning Martin Doutre's car            
Alyssa water-blasts the 1995 Nissan Avenir car while Tyler works on the right tail-
The deal was that they could have the car on the basis that they get their own
certification for it, and then certify another car for me that I had on the property.
The value of the car I gave them, once certified, would be between $2000-$2500.

The weather was generally very cold and often wet, and I was concerned about how lightly clad both Alyssa and, especially, Tyler were.

Tyler arrived with a cough, which seemed to get worse with each passing day. Gene gave him a jacket to wear.

20 JULY 2010

Alyssa and Tyler did more tidy up work on the Nissan Avenir, while James removed the defective fuel pump from his Nissan Laurel.

After work I went and picked up a mechanic friend who had a multi-vac unit for sucking through the clutch fluid to get the Nissan Avenir going.

Barry Taylor completed the task of making the station wagon fully driveable.

He had, the year before, done substantial work on Alyssa’s Hyundai sedan, which she had sold to her mother.

21 JULY 2010

Took them to the ASB bank to get out money.

I’d stocked up food and drink supplies to keep them going, but was mystified as to why they were smoking so much, when they were so lacking in resources.

They said they wanted to deliver the Nissan Avenir car to the certifiers and Tyler had taken new brake pads from my spare’s stockpile and installed them.

22 JULY 2010

While fixing my own car in my workshop, I was approached by Tyler, Alyssa and James, who wanted to arrange for me to pick them up later and take them to Waiwera to get the replacement fuel pump for the Nissan Laurel.

I later picked them up at the local garage from where, they said, they’d sent the 1995 Nissan Avenir to AA Compliance Centre, Portage Rd, New Lynn.

Weeks later I was able to learn that they’d very deceitfully sold the beautiful little station wagon to a towing company for some paltry sum, simply to get cigarettes and enough cash to buy James’s fuel pump.

When I finally learnt this I was heartbroken.

Alyssa had, apparently, used her driver’s licence as ID to show the tow-truck driver that she was the owner of the car being sold.

Both she and James were fully complicit as accomplices in the utterly stupid disposal of this car, which they had neither paid for nor intended to pay for in the future.

To add insult to injury, the lying trio, under false pretences, then had me drive them to Waiwera, where they purchased a fuel pump using funds from a car that they had, essentially, stolen from me.

I was now under the very mistaken impression that my valuable “gift” to them sat over in Glen Eden awaiting compliance and, that in a few days, the other car I had would undergo the same process, as agreed upon.

23 JULY 2010

A very miserable, cold rainy day.

I came home from work to find that James and Tyler had failed to get the fuel pump working and, in the attempting various things, Tyler had very stupidly cut the wires leading to the air-flow meter sensor.

Not only that, Tyler had utterly smashed the electrical plug leading to the device, then biffed it in the mud.

We searched around and retrieved the smashed plug.

Gene and I worked for hours re-soldering the mutilated parts and Gene finally got the car going, but running rough, late in the night.

Earlier I had taken them shopping and bought them groceries.

I was now beginning to see how dysfunctional, chaotic and out of control these kids were.

In my diary I described them as butcher-mechanics.

24 JULY 2010

It was a Saturday and the Nissan Laurel ran but sounded overly grunty, as if it was almost drowning in fuel.

In the morning they loaded up the car and headed north, or so I thought.

As they drove away, I was grateful to see them depart, as the last week or so had been very taxing and tiring. At last, Gene and I finally had our lives back.

Later, I had a call from my son Alain. The trio were stranded again, with no money, at Glen Eden (they’d gone south & not north).

Alain drove to them and gave them cash for gas, but told them to never ask him for money again.

They limped their gas guzzling car to me and only just made it.

The reasonably short trip across the city cost about $20.

Because the sensor was badly mutilated, the car was now consuming huge amounts of fuel.

I was stuck with the trio again. Fed them a pork roast dinner. Tyler was very sick with the flu and a terrible cough. I made him up a batch of Maori medicine from the kumaraho plant, and this cleared the terrible congestion.

25 JULY 2010

It’s Sunday and Tyler had apparently arranged for a tow truck driver friend to come and pick up the now sabotaged and defunct car in the morning and deliver it to Hikurangi.

We made a supreme effort to tow the heavy car up our drive to the main road, where the transporter could load it.

I had to finally take the digger up to push the Nissan Laurel up the steep part of the drive and onto the highway.

The trio waited at the car all day, but no tow truck ever turned up. It was all nonsense.

Allan Titford - Alyssa, James, Tyler at roadside with car

After a mammoth effort to get the car to the roadside for pickup, no tow-truck ever turned up.

They later came down for dinner.

Alyssa was in urgent need of more supplies, so I took her to the Warehouse and she stocked up, but also managed to bum $15 more off me at the service station for her much-needed cigarettes, saying she’d have money tomorrow and would pay me back then.

Of course, she had no such intention to do so and never did.

The Nissan Laurel spent the night on the roadside.

26 JULY 2010

I went to work in the morning, but had a break between classes where I could come home for a couple of hours.

Found the trio basking in the sun.

Tyler, said he’d like to buy a deregistered Subaru Legacy car, belonging to my son Alain, off us as he needed the motor for a car body he had over at Herald Island, near Whenuapai.

He said he’d already talked to my son.

I called Alain, who had abandoned the car at my farm and he said for me to do what I liked with it, as he had no further interest in the vehicle.

The car, although damaged, had an excellent motor in it that Allan Titford and I had hauled back from Matamata.

It also had a new clutch and pressure plate, a new gearbox and 4 new tyres, which I needed for another car.

Tyler offered $600 and I said I’d think about it.

I also said that I wanted to resolve one thing at a time, and we still hadn’t finalised the certification of the other cars.

I also said that if I sold it I would still want to keep the new tyres on it.

Later, as I hurried off to work, I passed the trio sitting in my kitchen, Tyler announced that his tow-truck mate, Junior, was coming to get the Subaru.

I said very emphatically, “NO! — the car is to be left where it is”.

Later I returned from work to find that the Subaru was gone.

The trio had also wandered off to Westfield Shopping Centre to buy stuff. (As I found out weeks later, with money obviously acquired by selling the Subaru to the tow-truck company.)

Again, apparently Alyssa used her driver’s licence to claim ownership of the car, so that the towing company were reassured that they could legally remove it from my premises.

I now knew what I was dealing with.

These were not the responsible, work-seeking individuals trying to make a positive start in life I had been led to believe they were.

Alyssa and Tyler, like Bonnie and Clyde were a couple of upcoming crims and James was little better than their getaway driver.

I was gutted that the Titford children, whom I’d known for years, would be capable of bare-faced lying to me to this degree.

But the true magnitude of the deception I wasn’t to find out until many weeks later.

For their defence in hauling away the Subaru against my expressed wishes, Tyler and the ever-deceitful others feigned surprise at my attitude, in saying, “Oh, but we thought you said it was alright to take it away”, which they knew was an absolutely falsehood.

I had been sworn to silence, and had kept the location of this triad in confidence from Susan and Allan Titford, as requested by Alyssa and James.

During the preceding week, multiple phone-calls and text messages had been sent to the trio by Susan, asking where they were and urgently requesting that James come home immediately for a farm-job that had been arranged for him.

With the theft of the Subaru, I was at the end of my tether and determined to terminate this drawn-out pantomime they were playing at my expense.

My son Gene said he’d take James home that evening to Hikurangi.

I said rather bluntly to Tyler and Alyssa to make up their minds what they were going to do — either come to Hikurangi with us or stay somewhere else in Auckland.

I left them to talk it out and loaded up James’s gear.

I called Susan and explained the situation, and that we were going to deliver James home late in the evening and possibly Alyssa as well.

She said she would wait up for us.

Tyler wanted to go to his mum’s place, supposedly over near Schnapper Rock Road, but wanted a very tearful Alyssa to go home to Hikurangi.

Both Gene and I had to work the next day and did not have the luxury of dilly-dallying while immature, love-struck brats made up their minds as to what they would do.

We attempted to drop Tyler at a video store near Schnapper Rock Rd, but he wasn’t going to let anyone know which house belonged to his mother.

Alyssa clung like a vine to him and wouldn’t get back in the car until Tyler forced her to.

He disappeared into the rainy night and Alyssa was hysterical as we drove away.

She attempted to exit the car at the lights and run off in the pouring rain to chase Tyler.

Thankfully the lights turned green while we were still rolling and she couldn’t exit.

She sobbed and yelled and it was evident there was no way we could go anywhere with her in such an out-of-control state.

I told Gene to drive home.

We’d lost a whole hour of travel time because of Tyler’s needs and Alyssa’s tantrum.

I called her Aunty Aileen, who lives in Brown’s Bay, and asked if I could drop Alyssa there.

She was very reluctant, but said yes after I explained the urgency of the situation.

Gene and I drove James home and dropped him off.

Susan and I had a talk and she gave me a number of revelations about Tyler and how he was using an alias name and had a record of convictions.

She wanted both Alyssa and Tyler to appear in the North, as the local police wished to grab and interview him.

Susan was trying to find out his real name, and was fairly sure she’d tracked it down, but would need to check more.

Susan also told me that Alyssa had been running wild, and had pretty much burnt all of her bridges with all of her friends by constantly borrowing money off them.

She had accrued large debts.

I was warned that Tyler was a very dodgy character and lied endlessly.

Susan also told me I would never see my cars again.

Before heading home, I requested some clothing for Alyssa, which I would drop by her great-aunt’s place.

Ulanda made me up 4 plastic shopping bags of items.

Gene and I were almost stranded in Whangarei when the alternator of the car failed. We later got it going again by revving the motor to red line, then headed out on the harrowing ride south.

It fully failed at Wellsford and we had to drive the last 40-miles on what power remained in the battery.

27 JULY 2010

I had just endured about 10 days of chaotic hell in trying to cater to the needs of this out-of-control trio, with at least two seasoned con-artists in the troupe.

I was tired at work, but got through the day.

I had called Aunty Aileen in the morning to say I had clothes for Alyssa, but Aunty said that Alyssa had only stayed there an hour last night.

She had been picked up by Tyler and some dodgy-looking mates in Brown’s Bay, where Aunty had been bullied into taking her.

At least the nightmare was over … or so I naively thought.

At about 10 pm, an hour after I had gone to bed, I received an urgent phone call from Allan Titford.

He had been called at home at Awanui by Alyssa, requesting help.

Because he was so far away and couldn’t render immediate assistance himself, he called me.

He said, “Alyssa missed her bus and is stranded at Westfield Shopping Centre. Could you please pick her up and give her a place to sleep for the night?”

I reluctantly explained to Allan that Alyssa, James and Tyler had stayed with me for the past ten days and made a short account of the sorry situation.

The main priority at that moment was to get Alyssa into safe circumstances, so I hung up with Allan and called her cell-phone number and Tyler answered.

I asked to speak to Alyssa and upon doing so I arranged to pick them from the Shell service station in Albany.

It was a bitterly cold night again and I found the two of them to be only very lightly clad, without decent warm jackets.

Tyler was very hesitant to get in the car and was hiding behind a pillar.

I finally said, “Make up your mind ’cause I’m leaving now”.

He climbed in and I drove them home in irritated silence, to a good bed and much-needed warmth. Why do these damned kids have to wait till such a late hour to get people scurrying after them?

I called Allan at Awanui and said that Alyssa was now in safe circumstances, but mentioned how I’d found her shuddering with cold, wearing only light attire.

I said that the two of them were in real danger of hypothermia out in the elements like that in the dead of winter.

I told him that Susan had said that Tyler is a very dodgy character, with a criminal record and using an alias. I had firmly concluded that Tyler was a compulsive liar and that everything spewed out of his mouth was false.

I still held mostly to the conclusion that Alyssa was just a stupid love-struck kiddie, who was staying dutifully loyal to her beloved.

I now know better.

28 JULY 2010

Alyssa and Tyler were getting a bus northwards at 10:30 am and Gene dropped them at the bus-stop.

Under utterly false pretences they’d had both Allan, as well as Susan, as far as I know, send down money for bus tickets that were never going to be purchased.

When I called by the Post Office in the late afternoon to mail off a package they were there and looked sheepishly surprised to see me.

I said, “I thought you were getting a bus at 10:30 am”?

Tyler mentioned how they’d missed that bus, but were now getting the 4:30 pm one … yeah right!

Later, at home my son Gene reckoned I’d be getting another call late tonight to come and pick them up, which proved to be prophetic.

I received a call from Alyssa at 9:30 pm saying that they’d missed the bus and what should she do?

I told her to call Tyler’s mother at Schnapper Rock Road and get some assistance from Tyler’s family.

Much later, Allan Titford called and we discussed the worsening situation of his daughter becoming a “street kid”.

Aunty Aileen wanted nothing more to do with Alyssa, especially chasing around after her in the middle of the night.

I asked Allan if his brother Brian, who lives just north of me in Waiwera, could take her in.

Allan then called Brian, who wasn’t interested in helping.

Allan called back and told me that there were no family resources of shelter in the offering.

I then called my son Gene and woke him up, then forewarned him of yet another nocturnal visitation.

I called Alyssa to find out her whereabouts. She and Tyler were outside Pak N’ Save beside Westfield Mall.

I headed down at midnight and found them standing near a security guard who was eyeing them closely.

Alyssa was smoking. They got into the car, out of the bitterly cold night, and I drove them home, pissed off by their out-of-control, ever-disruptive shenanigans.

29 JULY 2010

I didn’t have to start work at the university until midday, so prepared a letter-document, in the name of Tyler Jackson, addressed to the AA Compliance Centre, Portage Rd., Glen Eden detailing how the white Nissan Avenir car and Subaru were to be retrieved by Martin Doutré.

Tyler and Alyssa had continuously adhered to the lie that both cars were delivered to those premises by Tyler’s tow-truck mate “Junior”.

When Alyssa and Tyler appeared for their ride down the hill to the bus-stop, I confronted him with the document.

I told him to write down the names and phone numbers related to the individuals and companies that had removed the cars, as well as the present whereabouts of the vehicles and to sign it.

Alyssa looked very sheepish and Tyler became defensive and righteously indignant.

He nevertheless, wrote on the document, then crossed stuff out, as if very confused and under pressure after being sprung.

Gene and I drove them to Westfield Mall.

They got out of the car looking totally pissed off and angry at me and strode off without comment.

Allan Titford - Tyler Jackson statement about Martin Doutre's car

The document I tried to get Tyler Jackson (alias) to sign.

As it turned out, the cars never made it to AA Compliance Centre, Portage Rd, New Lynn and staff had no knowledge of them.

Also, the name that Tyler wrote for the towing company did not exist and the phone number given for his tow-truck driver mate was a fabrication.

Later on the same day I received a phone call from Tyler promising me profusely that he would honour his debt and commitment to me.

In the preceding days, I had primed Allan Titford about the potentially dangerous situation Alyssa had placed herself in.

Tyler Jackson was an unknown quantity, but seemingly had a criminal record for assault, if Susan was right about his real name.

She was going to tell the police the name she had found and have his identity verified.

It was in this critical atmosphere that Allan called Susan to find out what was going on and what to do about the dangerous situation involving his daughter.

I expected no less, as I was caught in the middle trying to deal with Alyssa’s problems, and had been systematically fleeced of assets in the process.

It was long past time for the parents to intervene directly and take full responsibility for the actions of their children, and I made this very clear to Allan.

By this point I’d had a gutsful.

29 JULY 2010

I made a call to Alyssa at about 8 pm to make sure she was in safe circumstances and had a place to stay that night. She assured me she was indoors and safe.

Much later that evening, I received a call from Allan Titford who said he’d called Susan to find out about Tyler.

He told me very emphatically that both Susan and he wanted me to lay a complaint with the police, against Tyler, over the theft of the cars.

I told him that I’d received a promise from the boy that he would honour his debt and that, inasmuch as I had only entered into the arrangement a few days ago, it was too premature to initiate a police complaint against the kid.

I told him that it might come to that later.

Allan then told me that if Alyssa became a bank robber it would be my fault.

He then yelled, “That’s the problem with this bloody country, everyone stands back”, then slammed the phone down in my ear.

I have not talked to him since.

For the next few weeks I remained in contact with Susan, and she kept me updated on her investigations.

She had been correct that Tyler’s real name as Anthony Matthew Lake.

She continued to have ongoing trauma in her dealings with Alyssa, including the theft of her car and later the theft of $1900, when Alyssa stole her credit card and maxed it out.

I have, however, stayed in fairly regular contact with Tyler (Anthony) who finally told me the full sordid story of what happened to my cars.

He has so far made two payments towards compensating for their loss.

30 JULY 2010

I got a phone call from Aunty Aileen that Allan had been arrested for calling Susan.

Late in the night of the 30th I commenced a letter to Susan, conveying my disappointment that she would have Allan arrested for calling her for information that would help him intercede in the worsening situation related to their daughter, Alyssa.

I sent the letter to Susan just after midnight on the 31st.

This is what it said:

Hi Susan,

                I find it very sad that Allan might have to go to gaol for a long spell because he called you after I told him of the terrible plight that Alyssa was in.

When he first called me to seek my help in getting her to safety, out of the cold in the dead of night, he had no inkling as to what the true situation was. He just figured she was somehow stranded momentarily and needed help. Alyssa had called him, seeking his assistance.

I had been sworn to silence by them and told horror stories about how they’d been ejected from the home, etc., and how unfairly they’d been treated … ad nauseum … but it was dawning on me that they were totally dysfunctional and out of control. 

The problem lay with them and no-one else.

I was very reluctant to tell Allan about the fiasco going on, but simply had to, as the situation was getting dangerous …  with his daughter out in the dead of night in midwinter and so lightly clad that there was a real risk of hypothermia.

She had developed a bad cough and Tyler had never stopped coughing from day-one (the incessant smoking certainly didn’t help).

I had no other option but to fill Allan in on the seriousness of the situation. To have done otherwise would have been irresponsible by that point in time. 

We had taken James home on Sunday night, but it was clear that Alyssa was not going to cooperate in getting herself back into safe circumstances and had thrown a hysterical, sobbing tantrum when we tried to drive her north with James.

After Tyler had disappeared into the night near Schnapper Rock Rd, she had attempted to exit the car at the lights, but we had kept the car moving.

I was obliged to get her to Aunty Ilene’s, as the only available, safe option. She’s an adult and has a legal right to make her own decisions, regardless of how stupid those decisions might be. I could not and would not force her to go north against her will. 

As it turns out, and unbeknown to me, she only remained there at Ilene’s for an hour.

All of this I told to Allan and he said that the only thing he could do is call you to see what the full situation was and find out about Tyler, so that he had some idea on how to proceed.

Under the circumstances of Alyssa being on the loose and out of control, I considered that to be a very reasonable and welcome move, as I was caught in the middle.

Both Gene and I have had to shell out quite a bit, both in time and money to try to normalise the situation as much as possible, but it was well past time for the parents to confer on the matter between themselves, share information and come up with a mutually agreeable solution.

It disturbs me now to know that Allan has now been incarcerated on a “technicality”. I’ve always considered that there is the “letter of the law” and there is the “spirit of the law” and the reason for his call to you was well-intentioned, with Alyssa’s well-being in mind.

In saying this, I have not talked to Allan, but heard about him being arrested when Aunty Ilene called me just before work this morning.

I’m astonished that anyone would want to penalise him in this way for trying to intercede and help his daughter.  

My last conversation with Allan was pretty much an argument over “calling the police and getting Tyler arrested for theft”. I considered I was being bullied into something too prematurely.

I have talked to Tyler and have received assurances that the white Nissan Avenir is going to be brought back here. Also, I’ll retrieve the Subaru if certain conditions are not met.

I’m going to give the young man a certain amount of time to fulfil his obligations, or, if he can’t, to return the goods and normalise the situation … before I seek to bring the wrath of heaven down on his head. 

Both Gene and I tried to help the travelling trio because I was initially called upon by Alyssa to do so, but I have no inclination to suddenly become a henchman. I’ll deal with Tyler in my own way and time.

I’m sorry to hear that Alyssa and Tyler didn’t get on the bus. Maybe I’ll be getting a phone-call at midnight again.

                         Best wishes,


My only other direct contact I’ve had with the Titfords was to help James get his car, broken down and in storage at my place for over a month, going and underway on 2 September 2010.

Allan Titford - James and Maori warden Daniel with car

James, brought down from Hikurangi by Maori warden and friend, Daniel, to install a new air-flow meter sensor, so that the car could finally be driven home.

The new fuel pump in the car had been purchased using funds from the illicit selling of my very tidy Nissan Avenir station wagon to a tow-truck company.

If I were to pursue any action with the police for the prosecution of Tyler Jackson, it would also have to include Alyssa and James, who were complicit in the ongoing fraud and lies told to me.


I intimated to Allan Titford in several conversations between 27 and 29 July 2010 that he needed to sort out the mess and havoc that his kids were leaving in their wake. They were fast becoming chronic liars and deceitful con-artists.

Martin Doutré

These events were also directly witnessed by Gene Doutré and, to a lesser degree, Alain Doutré and Barry Taylor, as well as others who can be named.

Allan Titford, Mike Butler, Paul Moon

Mike Butler to Paul Moon: 6 tricky Titford questions

Allan Titford - photo of Maunganui Bluff farm

The Maunganui Bluff farm that the Titfords were forced off.
How many other wrongs make that wrong right?

“Historian” Paul Moon has never been one to let a total absence of logic get in the way of a political diatribe.

On the Littlewood document, Moon famously proclaimed that “It can’t be a treaty because it wasn’t signed”.

(Which may sound plausible to a new chum. Until we point out that no proponent of the Littlewood document has ever said it was a treaty. It was the final English draft for translation into the Maori tiriti. So of course it would not be signed.)

In his latest dereliction of his duty of balanced reporting, Moon uses Allan Titford’s conviction on personal charges to declare all of his claims of state document tampering and tribal harassment a “fallacy” .

Bit of an own goal there, Paul. By using that term, you simply remind us of your fondness for red herring fallacies, including ad hominem attacks and poisoning the well.

For example:

For years, Allan Titford and his many supporters fashioned a dystopian and blatantly racist vision of New Zealand’s future, in which avaricious Maori tribes, together with obsequious politicians, would slowly but surely trample over private property rights.

Which, of course, is exactly what the state did in forcing Titford off his Maunganui Bluff farm, despite a string of politicians from Lange to Key promising the country that no farmer would ever lose his land to a tribal claim.

Again, our resident honest journalist Mike Butler poses some tricky questions to yet another lopsided commentator.


Questions for Dr Paul Moon

 Historian Paul Moon asks, in alleging jailed farmer Allan Titford’s mania fed a racial rift, where was the public defence of Te Roroa people who were vilified by Titford?

Here are some questions for Moon:

  1. Did Titford not buy a freehold title farm in November 1986 and was lawfully farming and subdividing his land when dogged by a claimant protest from August 7, 1987?
  2. Did the Te Roroa Report 1992 relitigate a claim that had been rejected in 1942?
  3. Is it not true that in the Te Roroa Report, the only proof that the land called Manuwhetai on the Titford farm, and Whangaiariki on Don Harrison’s farm, was omitted from the 1876 sale, was an assertion by the Waitangi Tribunal that it was left out?
  4. Is it not true that Plan 3253 attached to the 1876 Maunganui block sale shows a single reserve, and that was 250 acres at Lake Taharoa, and the land described as Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not marked or mentioned?
  5. And why is the Titford-Te Roroa scrap deemed racial when Susan Cochrane (Kakarana) has fine Ngapuhi ancestry?
elocal, Marcian Thomas

Titford’s partner: trial a ‘joke’

Allan Titford - elocal Marcian 1Allan Titford - elocal Marcian 2Allan Titford - elocal Marcian 3

My thanks to elocal editor Mykeljon Winckel, who has allowed me to release this story to you a day before it appears in his publication.

The fearless yet likeable ‘MJ’ — son of a Dutch war hero — is one of New Zealand’s few honest media owners. We’re lucky to have him.

Marcian Thomas was also interviewed for TVNZ’s Sunday programme, which screens tomorrow at 7.30pm.

Also appearing will be Susan Cochrane/Kakarana/Titford, so it will be interesting to see if TVNZ’s balance is any better than that of the Sunday Star-Times.

Allan Titford, Mike Butler, Sunday Star-Times

Mike Butler to Star-Times: 6 questions for Te Roroa

Allan Titford - SS-T - Turning back the racist tide

The Sunday Star-Times’s predictably unbalanced vilification of Titford:
no mention of his evidence against the state and Te Roroa

Former Hawkes Bay Herald-Tribune sub-editor Mike Butler, a meticulous seeker of facts, has sent the following email to Sunday Star-Times reporter Simon Day, author of the central panel of the above story from last Sunday.

The story (see link below) is predictably one-sided, and attempts to lull gullible readers into believing that because Titford has been put away for crimes against people and property, his evidence against the state and Te Roroa can be safely ignored.

Note Mike Butler’s account of recent harassment and death threats against those who speak out against the tribe.


Hi Simon,

I met you in Waitangi on February 5 this year. I was with John Ansell and sat in on the interview when we were kicked out of the Te Tii marae.

I researched the Allan Titford saga for the report at

I have some comments on your “Bittersweet vindication for iwi” story at

You wrote: “Last week the truth about Titford was exposed in the Whangarei District Court when he was sentenced to 24 years in prison for 39 charges including assault, sexual violation, arson and fraud.”

He certainly was sentenced to that time on those charges, but how accurate are the charges and what is the supporting evidence?

Attached is the list of charges that Titford faced. It is under a letter from Simon Power to Susan “Kakarana” (yes, you guessed it, Cochrane) on the subject of perjury and how to avoid being charged for committing it.

Look at the rape charges.

The charges allege three of sexual violation by rape — one on a day uncertain in the months of September and December 1987 at Dargaville, another on a day uncertain in 2008 at Kaitaia, and another on or about July 7, 2009, at Kaitaia.

With such vagueness on the dates, was Titford convicted of three charges of rape, or one, and if so, what evidence supported these allegations?

You will see that that one charge alleges that the Titfords in January 19, 1989, attempted a wool bales insurance claim.

A report by Detective Constable G.C. Smith, dated November 11, 1988, records a complaint by Titford of an attempted arson of his house on October 19, 1988, and notes that Titford had no insurance cover.

I would be very interested to see if Titford was convicted of attempted insurance fraud at a time when he had no insurance.

You wrote that it was found he had burnt down his own home in 1992, but had blamed it on local Maori to increase his claim to compensation from the government”.

You go on to say that “Te Roroa Maori hope this is a chance for their story to be told and the claims of harassment, terrorism, and sabotage exposed as lies”.

Are claims of harassment, terrorism, and sabotage actually lies?

You should ask Moengaroa Murray whether:

  1. On August 7, 1987, squatters moved on to the beach part of the section in force and erected signs to frighten away any prospective buyers.
  2. On August 16, 1987,  Hughie Te Rore and Huia White told Titford that if he gave them the land they would drop their tribunal claim.
  3. On December 5, 1987, at 1.15pm, Hughie Te Rore and Huia White arrived at the house and said that if Titford removed the buildings used by squatters they would take revenge within 24 hours and it would be nationwide news. (A vacant house on Titford’s property was burned down in the early hours of the next morning. Sue Cochrane said Titford did it.)
  4. On January 12, 1988, a group of claimants in a green Toyota Corona shot stock in Titford’s paddock. On that date, claimants also arranged for the Historic Places Trust to come in and make the site a sacred area.
  5. On January 20, 1988, claimants erected a large carved pole on Titford’s land. Local councillors, local non-Maori, Maori Marsden, and TVNZ reporters attended and dined on sheep slaughtered from Titford’s flock without Titford knowing.
  6. On March 22, 1988, claimant Hugh Te Rore had Conservation Department archaeologist Leigh Johnson (Mr) visit Titford’s farm. Johnson told Titford he had permission to be there from landowner Hugh Te Rore. Johnson also told Titford that the area was from then on wahi tapu and a reserve.

I would like to know whether Moengaroa Murray thinks these are all lies.

Just ask her the questions and see what she says and compare her reaction with those of other people you have interviewed.

If these are not lies, then the statement “claims of harassment, terrorism, and sabotage exposed as lies” is an untrue statement.

Thank you for talking to Don Harrison.

His story shows that Titford was not alone in facing harassment and pressure to sell. Other farmers north of Titford and Harrison were also forced to sell.

The Titford saga did not start out as an anti-treaty white sticking it to obstreperous Maoris.

It started out with Titford’s plan to become debt-free by developing a subdivision on his own land that was derailed by claimants who believed they had rights to that land.

Titford had a two-year mortgage at commercial rates in the late 1980s dependent upon subdividing and selling coastal sections within two years.

Claimant protest and interference prevented him from completing that project.

Titford could not afford to sell at the level Harrison sold for because he would be left with a substantial debt with no means of repaying it.

He tried solving the problem by negotiating with the government and by doing a deal with the bank to get another farm elsewhere, but he was strung along by the government and ripped off by the bank.

The final sale and purchase agreement had a clause in which he agreed not to sue the National Bank.

By 1995, when Titford finally had to sell or be sold up by the bank, he had accrued a debt to the bank of $2.2m.

Today I fielded two abusive phone calls.

Another colleague was similarly abused, and yet another had a death threat.

If this is bittersweet vindication for iwi, they have an unusual way of expressing it.

Mike Butler

Allan Titford

Why I’m not deserting Allan Titford

Article - SS-T - Rapist Titford a big pussycat - 24-11-13

Front page, Sunday Star-Times, 24 November 2013

Allan Titford’s partner of three years, Marcian Thomas, is just the latest of six friends of Titford to tell me that they suspect his wife and children have been bribed to lie about him.

In 2007, Titford’s father signed an affidavit saying that state fix-it man Ray Chappell offered him and his wife a $500,000 bribe to declare Allan insane, so the Crown could get control of his farm.

Allan Titford - father's affidavit about $500,000 bribe
The state tried to bribe Titford’s parents.
Did they also bribe his wife and kids?

I have written evidence of his wife Sue lying, and of two of his children lying and stealing since coming under her sole care.

And so when the Sunday Star-Times rang me last Friday for my thoughts on Allan Titford’s 24 year incarceration, I was not about to reflexively disown him — as the 1law4all party shamefully did.

I told Adam Dudding three things about the sentence struck me as so fishy they smacked of a vendetta by the state.

Firstly, there was Judge Duncan Harvey’s triumphant proclamation, “It is time for the people of New Zealand to learn the truth”.

And what is “the truth” that the judge wants “the people of New Zealand” to “learn”?

He can only be referring to the matter for which Titford has long been a thorn in the side of the government.

He can only be implying that Titford’s guilt on a slew of personal charges somehow invalidates his slew of evidence that the Crown and Te Roroa heavied him off his Maunganui Bluff farm to satisfy a provably bogus tribal land claim.

As you will see in coming posts, despite the Star-Times attempts to put you off the scent, that evidence remains as damning as ever.

Second matter of concern was the extraordinary 24 year sentence that Judge Harvey handed down — almost as long as those imposed on double murderers Peter Howse (25 years) and Graeme Burton (26 years).

What motivated this Northland judge to give Titford one of the longest, if not the longest sentence in New Zealand history for offences in which no one died, largely on the evidence of a disgruntled ex-wife?

And thirdly, there was the cumulative nature of the sentence — when almost all multiple sentences are served concurrently. Allan’s partner Marcian tells me the judge actually started his calculations at 34 years!

(Both Garth McVicar and Mike Butler were so staggered when they read ’24 years’ they thought it was a misprint.)

The maximum penalty for rape is 20 years. More to the point, how do you get a conviction for a marital rape at all, never mind one that supposedly occurred “on a date uncertain” in 1987?

(Of the 58 charges against Titford, only one could be pinpointed to a specific date, 13 offences were said to have happened ‘on or about’ a particular date, and the remaining 44 “on a date uncertain” in a particular month, half-year, year or decade between June 1987 and July 2009.)

Allan Titford - charges

44 of 58 alleged offences could not be pinpointed to within a month

So when reporter Adam Dudding rang, my mind immediately turned to the two long meetings I’d had with a surprisingly mild-mannered Allan Titford, his loving and totally supportive partner of three years Marcian, and their happy little son Leo, who clearly loved his dad.

It turned again to the tonnage of evidence I’d seen of state evidence-tampering and other harassment — enough to fill the 598 page book Robbery by Deceit by Titford and Ross Baker.

I thought of all the fine and honest people like Ross, Martin Doutre and Mykeljon Winckel who’ve been demonised along with Allan for shining the light on the state’s and tribe’s dirty tricks.

I thought of the chilling comment allegedly made by Ray Chappell to Allan that “we own the media and can manipulate public perceptions of you” and thatIt doesn’t matter how good your case is or how much evidence you find,
because we own the

I could hear my friends’ warnings that by giving Allan the benefit of the doubt I’d be putting my head in the media noose and adding my name to the list of media-annointed ‘conspiracy theorists’. (As if all conspiracies must, by definition, be false.)

Then I decided I was not going to let a man rot in prison, a woman live without her man, and a boy grow up without his father, while there remained the real possibility that he was being punished for proving the state corrupt.

The above front page story was the result.

Predictably, it leaves out my comment to the reporter that “if Allan actually did these things then he deserves everything that’s coming to him.” That, of course, would make me look too fair-minded.

Allan’s partner Marcian describes my assessment of Allan as a big pussycat as absolutely accurate. She says they have their barneys like any couple, but she’s never had any cause to fear that Allan might lift a finger against her, nor has he.

(A remarkable turnaround from the supposedly violent monster who so terrorised his previous family.)

Allan Titford in court

Allan Titford: 24 years for proving the state corrupt?
Why did his legal aid lawyer not call a single witness?

So why was Allan Titford found guilty?

Marcian tells me that Allan’s legal aid lawyer was woefully underprepared, and did not call a single witness, despite having six pages of names.

The aforementioned vindictive judge even thanked him for going so lightly on Sue and the children.

According to Marcian, when the verdicts were read out, four of the five women on the jury were in tears, and one man was later overheard as saying he never wanted to serve on a jury again.

There is much more to be told in the Allan Titford story.

Stay tuned.