On 18 October 2012, I was assaulted by a Maori woman called Dawn
Benefield (who resembles Hekia Parata, the Minister of Education)
on a train between Paraparaumu and Paekakariki stations, New Zealand.
This occurred as a result of her racist intervention (she said,
"Why don't you go back where you came from?") in a dispute
between myself and the mainly female White people mentioned below.
I used my cellphone to call the police. Meanwhile, I could hear
the White people around me (mostly women who knew each other) telling
a pack of lies about what had happened. So I told the police that
it was a conspiracy. Because I was outnumbered (only one man supported
my side of the story), the police arrested me and charged me. The
police case rested purely on the lies that these people told. The
objective evidence supported my story, viz:
The police recording of my emergency call (which
you can listen to here -- I have retained the police filename for
this audio file, except that I have deleted the letter "p"
which was originally the first character of the filename, because
the police now make me vomit). One minute and 56 seconds into
the Police recording of my 111 phone call to the Police, you can
hear me speaking to a woman who was wearing a white ribbon. Since
she approached from my left and I am right-handed, she presumably
did not see my cellphone or realise that I was using my cellphone.
I understand that that woman was "Sue", a Tranzmetro employee,
because other witnesses say in their written statements that someone
called "Sue" came to speak to me, and the woman with the
white ribbon was the only woman who spoke to me at Paekakariki station.
Kathleen Anne Nolan's statement also says that a female guard spoke
to me and was wearing a white ribbon.
The lying witnesses claimed that I had hit Dawn Benefield, but there
were no photos of her injuries, since she had not been injured.
While awaiting trial, I sent an email to
the police, pointing out that, of their original eight (8) potential
prosecution witnesses (i.e. people who said I had done bad things),
five had mentioned a conversation that I had had with "Sue"
a railways employee who was wearing a white ribbon, and
ALL FIVE had told gross lies about it. I therefore suggested
to the police that they drop charges against me.
This conversation with "Sue" took place while I was on
the phone to the police, so it was recorded. Those five lying witnesses
obviously did not realise that I was on the phone, or that the phone
call was being recorded, because they all told horrible lies to the
police in their written statements.
Instead of dropping charges, the police just dropped four of the
five witnesses who had told the provable lies, so that I could not
prove a conspiracy in court. Consequently, I was convicted of Assault
and Disorderly Conduct and sentenced (I was offered diversion, but
that would have meant pleading guilty, so I refused it. Unlike my
lawyer and the police, I had a focus on the truth, since this had
obviously been a Feminist conspiracy, and my war against the Feminists
has always been about the truth versus Feminist
lies). My then lawyer, Peter Foster, told me that you can't usually
cross-examine your own witnesses, so he could not call the witnesses
who the police had dropped and cross-examine them about their lying.
Subsequently, my lawyer at the High Court appeal, Tony Ellis, contradicted
Peter Foster on this point.
If all eight witnesses had appeared in court, my lawyer would have
been able to show that all of those eight who had mentioned "Sue"
(i.e. five of them) had lied about her. Those lies were similar to
each other, so it would have been obvious that those five probably
had lied in other things that they had said about me. Since the three
who had not mentioned "Sue" said similar things about me
to the five who had mentioned "Sue", that made it probable
that they were in a conspiracy to perjure themselves, so as to get
me into trouble.
This means that the police themselves must have realised that there
was probably a conspiracy to commit perjury, and that I was innocent.
Therefore the police deliberately went ahead
with a prosecution against me,despite the fact that they knew, or
ought to have known that I was innocent!
If just one person had told lies about my conversation with Sue,
it could have been an accident, but the fact that five people told
lies about it shows that they were all part of a conspiracy, or that
they were all independently hostile towards me, which is less likely
-- or some combination of those two possibilities. In other words,
the original conspirators could have recruited some additional witnesses
on the spot, as they seemed independently hostile towards me.
My conversation with Sue is the only time when what the Prosecution
witnesses say happened can be compared with an objective record --
the Police recording.
The Police case was built purely on witness testimony, without any
objective evidence of any kind. All the objective evidence supports
my version of events. Apart from the Police recording referred to
above, there were Police photographs showing that I received injuries
to my face. There was no objective evidence of any injury to Dawn
Benefield, who the Police treated as the victim.
The four prosecution witnesses who appeared in court (apart from
the police themselves) were:
Dawn Benefield, 9 Faydon Close, Ohau, Activity Manager, 021 767567
Elizabeth Margaret McAree, 23 Newry
Road, Raumati Beach, Personal Assistant, 021 0533173
Irene Walker, 6a San Vito Place, Paraparaumu, Administrator (who
now seems to have moved to Waikanae), 021 6722190
Stephen John Barton Eckett, 108 Wellington Road, Paekakariki,
Engineer, 027 4852916
Peter Zohrab <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:14:39 +1300
Alexander.Waterworth@police.govt.nz, Peter Foster <email@example.com>
Dear Constable Smith,
My lawyer will be unavailable for me to consult with until Tuesday.
There is a status hearing on Wednesday. My lawyer is writing/has written
to the Police Prosecutor to suggest that they drop all charges against
In that context, since certain relevant matters have occurred to me,
I am hereby notifying you of them, since they may be relevant to any
future decisions as to costs.
1. The credibility of most of your witnesses is severely undermined
by the gross discrepancies between what they say in their sworn statements
about my interaction with "Sue", the Tranzrail employee wearing
the white ribbon, and what is evident as transpiring in the recording
of my 111 call.
2. According to your disclosures, you appear not to have noticed the
bruise on my left chin (which I told the police about on the day in
question) which is evident in some of your photographs of me, you have
not measured the distance between my left nostril and that bruise, you
have not measured the size of Dawn Benefield's fist, and you have not
compared those two measurements.
Consequently, I am formally suggesting to you that you should urgently
contact the Police Prosecutor and suggest that they immediately drop
all charges against me. Failure to follow this suggestion will, in my
estimation, possibly have costs implications and other implications
I was convicted in the District Court, appealed to the High Court,
where I had a Maori female judge, lost there and I tried unsuccessfully
to get leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
I later applied to the new Criminal Cases Review Commission, soon
after it was set up. However, there were serious problems with its personnel,
so I wrote the following open letter: Political
Bias in the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
I also wrote a very similar letter to the Commission at the same
time, which concentrated on the effects of its personnel on my particular