As is clear to most followers of the local political scene, and was demonstrated particularly with the experiences of the Osbornes of Waikanae last year, the KCDC management and councilors hate their critics; and they have no qualms about indulging in whatever retaliatory harassment and intimidation they feel they can get away with.
One of the people near the top of the KCDC’s Hit List for harassment is Kerry Bolton, see earlier posts.
He tells us that he was arrested last Friday night and held for three hours. Reason? He mentioned the name of Dougherty/Guru/Power’s Accomplice in the David Scott affair on a radio talkback show following the trial in May. It’s certain that Ms Accomplice complained to the police about it.
Technically, he should not have done so, as in sexual assault prosecutions there is automatic name suppression for a complainant once the police have laid a charge, unless the complainant wants to be identified, or the court overrules it.
In this case the Newstalk ZB radio station has a delayed broadcast of 7 seconds so that such things can be censored before they reach the airwaves, but Newstalk ZB didn’t do so.
Kerry Bolton says, “I will readily apologise to the court for an unintended breach of name suppression about which the court had said nothing to the public. I asked several times whether Heather du Plesis of Newstalk ZB had also been arrested, but they were quite oblivious to that, and somehow thought that a radio station can not exercise the same control as a newspaper, despite my explaining several times about the censor button.”
“I also asked why David Scott had been phoned at 1:00 am with some crap about breaching bail conditions by not being at the Ibis Hotel in Wellington. Again, blank. Nonetheless, I found the two police officers Okay, and unlike David, I was allowed to keep my shoes on and given a ride home. “
Clearly, Ms Accomplice doesn’t want to be identified, although nearly everyone who follows the political scene in Kapiti knows who she is, via the grapevine. We are told she is no longer employed by the KCDC and now works in a government department in Wellington. As well as having a nasty personality, she was totally unsuited to the position that Dougherty gave her in the KCDC and her departure was appropriate.
Missed this issue. Will have to have a catch up read. Thanks.
My grandaughter said to me the other day ‘you will be next nanna’. So even teenagers know what a lot of nonsense this is
All supporters of David Scott will be on the KCDC’s Hit List, and you’re sure to be pretty close to the top of it.
But there’s strength in unity — as Martin Luther King said, “good temporarily defeated is more powerful than evil triumphant”
‘All supporters of David Scott will be on the KCDC’s Hit List ‘ I have just seen this. What an utterly ridiculous statement.
The Sword of TRUTH 🗡 shall pierce the Kapiti Council Darkness
There shall be Light 🌟 or Fire & Brimstone 🔥💥☄️
Reblogged this on Rangitikei Enviromental Health Watch.
Society takes upon itself the right to inflict appalling punishments on the individual, but it also has the supreme vice of shallowness, and fails to realize what it has done.
DE PROFUNDIS (Wilde)
I’m puzzled in this instance about the reference to automatic name suppression of a complainant once a charge is laid.
The alleged event of 13 April 2017 resulted as I recall in the complainant’s name being in the public domain prior to charges being laid – resulting in many I know in Kapiti being well aware of whom it was.
What I do not understand is how you can have information in the public domain and then work some process that makes it secret again. History is littered with examples where disclosure of secret or confidential information has occurred, often to someone’s misfortune, but once in the public domain there is no possibility of return.
Use of “accomplice” is clear enough, but even looking in the public domain now – reference to “a female senior manager” at KCDC can readily be found and it does not take much to piece together other bits of information to work out who is being referred to.
My question is – Is it appropriate for name suppression to be continued in a case of widespread public interest in the service of someone in a senior role – who right from the start would have fully appreciated the impact the complaint would have?
Can the genie be so readily returned to the bottle?
It was in the public domain from the outset because Dougherty/Guru/Power wanted it there — and they got what they wanted. It is generally believed that Ms Accomplice’s third husband who she met through work was the one who gave all the details to the media, with the caveat that Ms Accomplice’s name was not to be mentioned. Almost certainly it was the trio’s concern to hide the identity of Ms Accomplice that made them demand the police in Paraparaumu arrest David Scott on their concocted allegation.
Yes, everyone who follows the local political scene has known who she is from the outset, or if they haven’t, it was easy enough to find out. We have been told that she had done something similar in the past, so knew just what to do. She may be concerned that her history in this field will make a prospective employer unwilling to take her on, but anyone who receives a CV from “a former senior manager” at the KCDC will have alarm bells ringing.
The identity of the complainant was published from the start, and remains published by the Observer and Stuff. If the complainant wished to remain anonymous she should have assured whoever leaked the story to the press did not mention her council position, which identifies her readily. Will the editors and reporters of Stuff and Kapiti Observer be arrested? What about Heather du Plesis Allen who allowed the name to be broadcast on her talk-back, despite having what I am informed is 8 to 15 seconds to use the ‘dump button’? As a news portal, and her being a seasoned journalist, they knew damn well the laws in regard to name suppress; I did not, especially considering no effort was made to obscure the identity of the complainant in the media; which is why not publishing an occupation is supposed to be part of a name suppression order. Or am i just being singled out because I have critiqued the pseudo-evidence and ill-informed medical testimony that was used against David Scott?
Here are a few facts for you – I listened to Newstalkzb the morning after David Scott was found guilty as charged and I heard the first talkback caller, Kerry Bolton. And I heard him quickly name the female complainant in a very sensitive case dealing with a complaint of highly inappropriate act by a man towards a woman.
That was an appalling thing to do Mr Bolton. She had name suppression and you were aware of it, and the only publication I am aware of that breached it was this one. WaikanaeWatch. I rang Nick the shows producer straight away and he had already realized he just was not quick enough to stop you.
As a victim / survivor of a serious domestic abuse incident, in which the perpetrator was originally charged with attempted murder, before his charge was reduced to an act of violence against a woman. I am quite disgusted and frightened by the 9 comments above.
Firstly, because most of them come from women, that is disgusting. but also because I wish to stop you grandstanding in a manner which is causing so much further harm to all parties in this sad event.
I am strong enough to voice my disgust here because surviving made me strong. Stronger than I ever wanted to be. I will speak up for the complainant in this case and every case. I will stand up proudly for the White Ribbon campaign and I will wear the personal attacks against me that will no doubt come my way for standing up. YAWN!
I challenge you, Mr Editor to be strong enough to publish this comment as what I have to say is :Do not abuse the parties in this complaint any more”.
There was NO name suppression in place at the time we mentioned who Ms Accomplice was in the piece in late-April 2017 as there had been no charge laid, and there wasn’t for another 2 weeks. Nor did we mention the nature of this preposterous allegation.
We did receive a threatening letter from Simpson Grierson (as did Kapiti Independent News) which was legal crap and would have been thrown out by a judge, but we wanted to prevent yet more cost to Kapiti ratepayers because of that firm and your cohorts, so decided to omit the name of Ms Accomplice.
Get your facts right please, Cr Elliot.
Interestingly Cr Elliot stated that she heard the mention of the complainant’s name the day after David Scott was found guilty, why then did you refer to a date more than a year ago. I see no correlation between the two and if I am correct then Cr Elliot’s facts are indeed right.
Referring to Mr Bolton’s link to a mental health website, it is not clear to whom he was commending that site, was it the complainant, David Scott or someone else entirely – who knows?
It seems to me that there is a great deal of anger here, and that is hardly surprising. Any person who was treated the way that David Scott was found guilty of is entitled to be angry. His supporters however were to the best of my knowledge not present when the assault took place; they seem to be basing their support on their own interactions with David Scott which is fine when assessing someone’s personality but does not prove innocence or indeed add any fact or even evidence about this dreadful matter.
Cr Elliott – I applaud any survivor of proven abuse who channels his/her resultant strength to the support of genuine complainants – complainants whom themselves represent different points on the continuum of gender.
Neither the fact of ‘guilt’ nor its antonym ‘innocence’ are gender based – nor is an individual’s inalienable right to hold and express an evidence based view of where the truth lies.
Aspects of that which I witnessed first hand in the sentencing hearing of 19th June – along with various posts (inclusive of your own) made shortly after – demonstrate to me that ‘the quality of mercy (strongest in the strongest)’ is indeed strained – along with the quality of both reason and logic.
The Prosecution was very insistent that the victim impact statement be suppressed. Hearing it was a revelation. It is not surprising that the content of the statement cannot be described. Anyone in Kapiti even casually acquainted with the situation might found it outlandish; a sick joke in many respects. The Prosecution even tried to have the court public excluded while the statement was read; no wonder.
The complainant has promptly gone to media claiming that her friends and family have been ‘cyber-stalked’ and the mayor’s office phoned, ‘by supporters of David Scott’. She is presenting half a dozen pensioners with varying degrees of medical issues, as a looming threat to her. If nothing else this has confirmed the character of the complaint to me, not having been able to hear her public excluded testimony at the first day of the trial.
The complainant states she has had great support form Council. I have no doubt. I can state from my first-hand observations that David Scott has great support from the public, who know the man, and know the Council.
Postscriptum
Symptoms of “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”:
http://www.mentalhealth.com/home/dx/narcissisticpersonality.html
What’s interesting to me is that Scott’s supporters seem to be limited to the six old pensioners you refer to. That leaves 48,998 (2013 census figures) Kapiti Coast residents who don’t support him.
Reading the community Facebook pages, more than 90% of people commenting don’t like the man, are disgusted with his behaviour and can give accounts of similar behaviour over the years. They want him to resign.
Best you lot get yourselves some good tinfoil hats, you’re all somout of touch it’s nit funny.
Oh yes, tinfoil hats. There’s nothing like ad hominem as a red herring is there? If David Scott’s supporters were limited to six old age pensioners then that would be six people who know about the background of which you know nothing. Gutless quips on the internet are not indicative of much. The complainant’s identity has always been public, due to someone leaking the matter to the press, presumably either the mayor, the then CEO, the complaint or her husband… for whatever motive. If there was someone else outside this circle who could have leaked this, then who?
The complainant has now extended her comments to include vilification of those who regard her claims as hogwash, used to destroy an honorable and decent man who has done more for the community – without publicity, without fanfare, without even mentioning his record in his electoral literature – than most.
The complainant is making bizarre claims that ” David Scott’s supporters,” apparently a mysterious and dangerous cabal, have cyber-stalked her friends and family and phoned the mayor’s office. Is this phoning the mayor’s office a reference to an elderly anonymous woman, who tried to tell the mayor over a year ago that as a friend of the complaint’s family she and others were concerned that the complainant had psychological problems? She was treated in an ill-mannered way by the mayor’s PA, also a witness at the trial, whose testimony was inconsistent with that of all the other prosecution witness – yes, all. The Prosecution answer to that was that this proves there was not ‘collusion.’ Similarly, Dr Scott’s statement to the police was more detailed than an innocent man would give, according to the Prosecution. These are the non-sequitur explanations that apparently impressed the jury.
Speaking of harassing phone calls, what is one to make of the caller, claiming to be from police, phoning Dr Scott at 1.00am and spouting some crap about bail conditions? As for the need for a tinfoil hat, unfortunately I am unable to describe the off-the-wall nonsense that the complainant read out in her victim impact statement. Now that really was something to behold. But she was insistent , via the Prosecutor, that she did not want it reported outside Court.
While it is easy for you to offer puerile pontificating, I have seen first hand what damage this has done and is doing to many decent people, friends and family. I have seen the impact on David’s health, resulting in a heart operation two weeks ago.
Oh yes, it is all very plausible. Dr Scott thought he would have a quick rub against the complaint’s arse, looking so irresistible, that he could not control himself, in a small room packed with people, while she was talking with the mayor, who said she did not move and that David did not touch her with his hands (despite the claim that he grabbed her by the hips). What a load of crap. Utter crap. Grow up and think.
There are also those who have dealt in their lives with actual abusive relationships, and are very upset that this matter has been used as part of some agenda. If you know nothing about such matters, why not simply just shut up?
I spent years caring for someone who had been in a previous abusive relationship for several decades to the point of having PTSD. I spent years helping her extricate herself from her ex-husband in what should have been a simple and prompt matter, but costing $30,000 in legal fees and years in courts.I spent years under daily stress and nutcase allegations about murder and kidnapping.
Years later, due to my concern with animal welfare, I was lyingly accused by Janet Holborow, Penny Gaylor, Michael Scott (a witness at Dr Scott’s trial), Murray Bell, Diane Amudsen (with her fake so-called ‘affadavit’), and Gavin Welsh of chasing Holoborow with my walking stick, just to silence myself and others on the matter of the confinement for two years and killing of the dog Beau. Another Council jack-up, involving a staff member. So no, I do not appreciate halfwits lecturing me on such matters.
Get this. It’s simple:
1. All witnesses for the Prosecution were apparently in different but intersecting time warps, as they all saw something different.
2. The medical evidence of Dr Cammack was total crap. As a Doctor maybe he should become a truck driver? He said that Dr Scott’s sutures would have healed within weeks, that the circumcision operation would have quickly healed, that pain and bruising is not caused by insulin injections in the stomach. Crap on each point. It takes ten frigging minutes to research such matters. However, it was from this testimony that the Prosecution called Dr Scott a “liar.” It was surely crucial in the jury’s verdict.
3. Photographic evidence, with the date, that showed the extensive wounds as well as the very deep bruising that Dr Scott had at the time of the alleged event, was not presented to Court. The record book of his insulin injections was also kept by the police and not presented.
4. Gurunathan lied under oath in stating that Dr Scott had not shown him the insulin injection bruising around the time of the alleged incident. The witness that was with Dr Scott, Guru and Pat Dougherty at the time, was too ill to testify, again the result of stress.
5, Two witnesses both stated that immediately prior to the alleged incident Dr Scott suddenly stopped talking with them, came over looking sick (white as a ghost and white as a sheet, is what they stated) and quickly went away to inject his insulin. He was described as ‘wobbly on his feet’. He then got something to eat. It was then in this small, crowded room that he supposedly thought ‘wo-ho, I like the look of that arse; I’ll go and have a quick rub, while she’s talking to Guru’.
6. I phoned Newstalk ZB when Heather du Plesis Allen was calling Dr Scott a creep, an embarrassment, what a creepy moustache (grown to hide an op. for cancer) , he should slink away, etc etc., ad nauseum. I did not phone with the intent of saying that woman’s name – which was inadvertent – but of issuing a challenge for any portly, middle aged gentleman to try rubbing himself against the backside of a woman in the manner alleged by Dr Scott, without losing balance. The only taker was some oddity claiming he could easily do it – but used for the purpose a chair and a door frame.
7. Use your brains, or will that be too painful?
Can anyone tell me why you would go for name suppression, also suppression of your impact statement?? Then appear on TV One so everyone in New Zealand who you have worked with or met on the street would be able to recognise you?? Your voice & wording of phrases also your hair & body image were all recogniseable from your interview with TV One!! So don’t be surprised when you next visit a Shopping Mall if someone comes up to you & says “I recognise you, you were on TV One the other night!!”
Does anyone know whether that filming by TVNZ was on the council premises?
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/woman-indecently-assaulted-kapiti-councillor-says-shes-victim-smear-campaign?auto=5799116712001
We can’t view the clip in the U.S., probably TVNZ doesn’t allow viewing of their videos outside NZ.
Councillor Elliott (above) accuses Bolton of grandstanding, seemingly for being interviewed about being arrested for use on a radio program of a publicly known name, subsequently suppressed by a Court, but with muddy waters around how a suppression order gets conveyed to knowing public with no direct involvement in the case. In Bolton’s mind he is always likely to be always thinking of the complainant, not as the complainant, but by her real name – and as above Bolton is reported to have said “I will readily apologise to the court for an unintended breach of name suppression about which the court had said nothing to the public”. David Scott has always consistently maintained he never did what he was accused of but a jury said he was guilty and Elliott notes the “guilty”. Elliott then uses her own serious domestic abuse experience to elevate the circumstances of the present case to her own and lambastes a few women who have posted above for not standing by a complainant in every case, regardless of circumstances.
I have met a couple of the women and know they are strong supporters of the White Ribbon campaign and that their own life experience and support for others deserves no criticism from Elliott. Elliott says she is disgusted and frightened by the comments above [two of which didn’t even relate to the subject] and makes the plea “do not abuse the parties in this complaint any more” having just undermined credibility with “YAWN”.
Who is grandstanding? Bolton’s posts are filled with readily verifiable facts. Elliott’s is thin on facts and some are wrong.
Further down another post bleats out from the anonymous cloak of Frances who tries to divide Kapiti by alleging that 48998 Kapiti residents don’t support David Scott.
Frances, whoever you are, this is not about whether one supports, likes or dislikes David Scott based on spurious attributes, it is about the circumstances of a case which has incurred huge costs, social and monetary, based on a so far inexplicable alleged event lasting a few seconds. You say more than 90% don’t like the man, referring to “similar behaviour over the years”, so why did so many in Kapiti vote for him in the last election? Your post is nothing more than malevolent claptrap based on unsubstantiated ill-informed gossip from community Facebook pages (pages that you failed to identify), in an attempt to discredit the disquiet and concerns many in Kapiti have about aspects of this case.
What disquiet you might ask? On Waikanae Watch for a start, there’s many points of substance which should provide food for thought if one can see beyond a myopic view of the word “guilty”.
In the Dominion Post last Wednesday, the complainant is reported as saying “It also annoyed her that Scott continued to maintain his innocence and claim it was his word against hers, when in fact several witnesses had provided evidence against him during the trial. It’s a real shame when people can’t accept the outcome of the judicial process we have in this country…” The complainant in the media has emotively criticised the defendant for his lack of remorse. The lack of remorse card has been well played, but wait a moment, why would you show any remorse if you truly believed you did not do what you have been accused of? Those who blindly swallow a jury finding as absolute truth in the context of a jury seemingly misled by a pushy prosecutor could well be victimising a defendant who truly believes he did not do what was alleged.
The term “misled” has been used with care. The public has no way of knowing what the complainant said in her evidence in this case because the pushy prosecutor persuaded the judge to close the court to the public. But outside of that, both prosecutor and complainant did use emotive words that none of the witnesses verified, but use of those words could well have influenced the jury.
I can accept that the complainant could have perceived and truly believed what she thought was happening behind her, but that does not mean it happened. A crucial cause of disquiet in this case turns on the apparent lack of witnesses’ present verifying what she perceived was happening. The complainant’s statement to the Dominion Post implied that witnesses have proved what she perceived in her mind and alleged, but it appears that none of the recorded witness evidence verifies what she perceived.
We should all be aware of seemingly watertight jury verdicts at one time that have totally vilified a defendant in the eyes of the public – then years later, finding the jury got it wrong – with huge cost to the defendant in the meantime, which no amount of monetary compensation or apology can ever rectify.
When one looks at the circumstances of this case so far, it does appear that based on the evidence admitted in this case (as far as the public can ascertain), that a guilty verdict was not inevitable and that there is a real possibility of a true miscarriage of justice having occurred with the jury finding.
So, Frances and all the rest of Kapiti who blindly follow a jury verdict, take a good long walk down the Waikanae River. It may do you far more good than wallowing in the festering community Facebook pages.
It’s been said to us by multiple lawyers that the justice system doesn’t deliver justice. Cases are often won by which side tells the biggest and most convincing lies. But what was the motivation in this episode? See the post from 28 April 2017.