My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« New Arthur Allan Thomas book just over a week away | Main | I hate Ian Wishart because... »

Comments

Sally

It is good to see the old police fraternity still alive and kicking.
Once a cop, always a cop.

The spirit is strong in Nick, once inducted into the country's biggest legitimate gang,
the spirit never leaves you. The environment that teaches our young cops to trust no one but their own kind, is with them for life.
Their training teaches them to be blind to their colleagues questionable actions, and to defend them, at all costs.
The stories I could tell!
Thank goodness Ian has chosen to.
Well done Ian.

Ben

Nick - I hope that's not a throw-away comment and you do stick to your word by publishing your account. I look forward to hearing your response to some of the strong evidence against Johnston.

Peter

Forget about Nick - he may be ACT and ACT may have grave problems - but on this topic he seems on target to me.

But who the heck is Ben? Has he not followed the various campaigns of Ian Wishart in recent years and observed his hit rate?

Ben

Peter - you make it sound like you have to be 'somebody' to comment on blogs. I've got no affiliation with anybody within this blog and stumbled across it when trying to find out more about this latest book. I'm just a person who enjoys seeing somebody finally challenging what we get fed in the media.

To my understanding, Ian & co don't simply challenge controversial issues for the sake of it - they investigate issues they believe the media and/or authorities have misled the public on, either as a result of inept journalism or hidden agendas.

I'm not suggesting I agree with every word written in every piece of material Ian & co have published - but a large percentage of the time they provide strong evidence resulting in compelling arguments. You make reference to his "hit rate" - as I said previously, ultimately we have to decide whether evidence is reliable and accurate - so his "hit rate" is largely subjective.

Ian Wishart

Nick, thanks for that. Your original comments came in the wake of some birdbath shallow analysis from Greg O'Connor and Pat Booth, neither of whom had read the book either and both of whom have vested interests.

I'm sick of being critiqued on the basis of strawmen...to wit, I'll be posting something else shortly to tie up a range of loose ends in that regard.

I have no problem with criticism based on actual reasoned arguments.


Chuck Bird

Ian, I can understand you being unset O'Connor's response. However, Nick was not using his full name for a reason. Do you not consider it unfair to try and drag ACT into this debate?

James

Lets just cut to the chase...it was David Garrett,with the candle stick, in the library.

;-)

Peter

Ben ..

If you have just "stumbled" on this blog, then you will have no idea of the volume of small sensations we have seen come and go.

Frankly, if nothing substantial can be put up to make the allegation of potential rapist stick, I don't think the book will convince.

The ACT association of Nick one way or the other doesn't bother me. If the right wing represented by both Ian and Nick want to disagree, let them disagree.

Ian Wishart

Chuck...I'm not really dragging Act into it...but the moment I named Nick it was going to be obvious anyway...

Do people in the media and politics have a right to blog privacy from which to launch a quite vituperative personal attack? Not sure I support that.

Peter, you are displaying your own ignorance as a result of failing to read the book. The rape allegation context is set against a just-as-offensive assertion made by Bruce Hutton and Crown Prosecutor David Morris against Thomas, without ever cross-examining him on it.

Like I said, I took the allegations the police threw at Thomas, and simply measured Johnston against them.

The full context is in the book.

Ben

Peter - Earlier you said "Nick seems to be on target with this one". Nick has acknowledged that he needs to read the book before passing judgment - I hope you do the same.

As I mentioned previously - I don't agree with every word of every article published - but I support the work Ian & co do in trying to promote the truth. And it seems sometimes the truth conflicts with what people want to hear (hence some of your comments throughout this blog).

Peter

I do recall some outrageous suggestions coming from the Crown without foundation all those years ago. But surely that does not mean they need to be repaid in kind? Rape allegations are serious charges whomever makes such charges.

Ben, as you say, you are quite new to this blog and boy does it show!

Peter

Ben this is particularly for you but ..

Remember this case everybody?

http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2007/11/another_cabinet.html

Peter

Somebody in the newspaper was complaining about Ian Wishart's campaign on this policeman saying that he thought Wishart was meant to be a Christian.

The observation I would make on this. The Bible was largely written by Christians, and it too is full of fables.

Ben

Peter - Yes I'm 'new'...and after browsing through a few of the archives it looks as though you’re not. That’s fine and I’ve got no problem with that – but I’d personally prefer not to spend every spare second following and debating on blogs (although I can see how it could become addictive).

This blog is for the AAT book – not to debate whether the Bible is “full of fables”. However the Christian comment you're referring to cannot go unaddressed (NB. The comment was made by Greg O’Connor...for someone so outspoken, you don’t seem to put much time into referencing even the basic details) – what is so ‘un-Christian’ about taking the allegations police threw at Thomas, and simply measuring Johnston against them? (A paraphrase of Ian’s earlier comment).

Peter

Surely the point here is that the police were already found to have planted evidence to secure their conviction. This enabled Arthur Allan Thomas to be freed and to receive financial compensation.

But why, after 40 years, would you want to turn the tables completely, and suggest that the police completed the murder as well?

Ian protests that he is only making allegations along the lines of Hutton and Morris's at a previous trial. Hutton, Morris .. well why not drag one of them into it, rather than Johnston?

BTW Ben, have you read "The Divinity Code" - yet another example of why the Bible itself is what it is !!

Ha Ha Ha!!!

Peter

Ben and all

Have you read this, it is quite funny. The comments under the article are rather interesting to say the least too. Here is the first posting:

http://www.imperatorfish.com/2010/09/ian-wisharts-latest-fantasy-work.html

Ian Wishart's Latest Fantasy Work

Fantasy and sci-fi writer Ian Wishart may have another bestseller on his hands. The author of science fiction work Air Con has now written a novel about the 1970 Crew murders, entitled Arthur Allan Thomas: The Inside Story.

Arthur Thomas was convicted for the murder of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe, but was pardoned in 1979 after evidence emerged that the police planted evidence to convict him. Numerous theories have continued to bubble away over the years about who really killed the couple. Some people think it was a murder-suicide, some still think Thomas was the murderer, while occasionally other names are thrown into the mix.

The reviews of Wishart's novel indicate he has deployed his great writing strengths, fantasy and science fiction, to masterful effect. In Wishart's book the murderer is Detective Sergeant Len Johnston, one of the two police officers blamed by a Royal Commission for planting a shell casing to implicate Thomas. The evidence pointing to Johnston is desperately thin. It appears to consist of Johnson having a reputation for being a "dirty cop" who (we are told) liked to start fires. Combine this with the (alleged) fact that a few years before the murder Johnston was at the Crewe house investigating a burglary, and that the Crewes apparently reported a couple of suspicious fires in 1968 and 1969.

A writer of serious books would probably find himself up against it if he tried to construct a murder case out of that random set of facts. But Wishart is not a writer solely of facts, being a master weaver of fact and fantasy. For those avid readers of his works who thrilled to imagine a world where evolution was a myth, and where a cabal of scientists planned a global warming conspiracy, this will be a must-read book.

The book is released tomorrow. Keep an eye out for it in the fantasy fiction sections of all good bookstores.

Ben

P.S. Peter - please read Ian's latest post ("I hate Ian Wishart because...") - he's addressing people like you.

And I'm still interested in hearing a response on how raising the possibility (backed up with strong and reliable evidence) that Johnston could have committed the Crewe murders is 'un-Christian'.

Peter

Ben, Are you really new, or have you been involved in this Blog for the same length of time as Ian Wishart?

Ben

As I said previously - I've got absolutely no affiliation with Ian Wishart or any of his colleagues, and have never even met the guy. I'm a married 20-something with a child on the way, and on the average wage.

I simply read his material objectively and form opinions based on the information put in front of me. I'm not somebody who spends lives my life fixated with trying to find holes in other people's arguments (although with some of your comments, it's hard to resist) - the thought of that existence makes me feel sorry for those people who do. However, I do support those like Ian Wishart who are willing to put themselves on the line (probably literally) to confront the issues that the media should be confronting - but don't.

Have you managed to find a response to my earlier question re the Christian comment? Or are you trying to mask over it by directing me to other blogs based on one Herald journalist's 800 word review?

Peter

Gosh that writing style seems somehow sooo familiar!!

Is it an act of Christian charity or forgiveness or whatever - to suggest that a policemen was investigating a murder he committed himself? And 40 years ago. Glad this man was not my father.

The comments to this entry are closed.