After making further inquiries other information was received regarding this matter and it became apparent from the evidence that local Police are extremely selective to the point of blatant corruption regarding the enforcement of the law, that witnesses and 'complainants' are being encouraged to commit perjury by vindictive local Police officers, who are desperate to convict people they don't like, at any cost, regardless of the moral or legal implications.
This link to the phone call to emergency services which was made on 18 February 2014 by Melissa Peacock, recently married to Ronald Peacock, a member of the Nomad gang according to Police, with a long history of violent offences. She complains of "tailgating" and "trying to run me off the road" and claims to have been travelling behind an ambulance at the time this occurred.
This is a link to the formal statement of the complainant in this matter. Paragraphs 3-8 indicate a desire to "set the scene" for the allegation. Being of an inquisitive nature, I wondered what action was taken as a result of statements being made to Police by two witnesses alleging they saw a man make threats to them. Enquiries revealed that the alleged offender had never been charged with threatening to kill either complainant as a result of this incident referred to in the complainants statement to Police regarding the alleged event on 18 February 2014.
The complainant begins by stating her full name and that she is speaking to Senior Constable Simpson about an incident that occurred that afternoon while she was driving her car.
She states that this matter "involves Lee Harris." Mr Harris is a local man who minds his own business and works hard, who is known to the complainant.
The apparent 'involvement' in this case appears to have been the agreed fact that the defendant happened to drive out of a side road into in a merging lane and the complainant over reacted to this. The evidence is odd to say the least, and deserves wider scrutiny. Repeated requests to Police for a copy of the Summary of Facts relating to this matter - or even just confirmation or denial regarding the EXISTENCE - or not - of a Summary of Facts. It appears that there never WAS a Summary of Facts, despite section 12(a) of the Criminal Disclosures Act stating that a summary of the facts alleged against the defendant must be provided in the INITIAL disclosure! Police continue to refuse to confirm or deny whether a summary of facts ever existed!
The complainant continues to say that she has known the defendant for a long time, but that she and her husband have had "ongoing problems" with him for "5 - 6 weeks" - yes, since her husband assaulted an innocent woman who happened to be known to the defendant with a knife and a motor vehicle and threatened her, on the mistaken assumption that the victim was the defendant's [Lee Harris's] "missus".
Paragraph 11 is odd because it refers to "my friend Bridgette" rather than "my sister in law Bridgette Peacock", given the reference to Ronald Peacock in the initial paragraphs.
The complainant's statement goes on to describe an 'event' which appears to be based on her perception of imminent danger rather than any ACTUAL danger. Paragraph 16 describes how the complainant noticed a car pull out of a side road into a merging lane on the main highway - a perfectly normal occurence.
"I was on SH2 approaching Clareville heading towards Carterton and just as I went past the Chester Road intersection there was a car, all of a sudden, just there, right next to my drivers door."It would seem that the complainant was driving along in a daze, possibly under the influence of some substance, as the defendant alluded to during the cross examination of the complainant, and she suddenly noticed that there was a side road there and that she was driving alongside a merging lane, and there was a car in the merging lane, which happened to be the defendant's car. This is alleged to have happened in rush hour traffic. The prosecution goes on to spout a garbled account that is frankly in the realms of fantasy, and the evidence given adds a lot of weight to the defendant's references to the complainant's drug addictions perhaps, and indicate that this woman should not be driving on the road if she is going to panic for no reason, if her eyesight is seriously impaired which it obviously is and if she is going to drive in the erratic manner described in her statements and evidence and while talking on the phone. There was no ambulance. And if there had been, and what she said was true, the ambulance driver, or any of the other motorists, would have certainly reported it.
"I got such a fright I pulled over into the road verge and stopped."
In the interests of transparency and the fair administration of justice, here is a link to the Court documents regarding this matter. If you have trouble viewing these documents leave a comment below with your email address and we will mail them to you directly. Comments are moderated prior to publication and confidentiality guaranteed.
Compare this information with the letter sent to Police from a lawyer stating this:
14 February 2014
Inspector Brent Register
Masterton Police
cc Garry Wilson & Jodie Lawrence, Prosecuting Sergeants
cc Glen Jordan, Officer in Charge
VIA EMAIL
Dear Inspector Register
PROSECUTION OF RONALD PEACOCK FOR SERIOUS OFFENCES AGAINST[NAME WITHHELD TO PROTECT THE VICTIM OF THE SERIOUS OFFENCES]
I act on instructions for [NAME WITHHELD TO PROTECT THE VICTIM OF THE SERIOUS OFFENCES], (my client), and I am writing to you in regard to the lack of Police response to very serious criminal activity by Ronald Peacock, (the defendant), against my client.
Background
As you are no doubt aware, my client is now essentially in hiding, (with Police assistance), in a Masterton motel, following the burning down of her home on Waitangi day this year. The house one paddock over, was burned down a week or so before this, which in light of everything I have been instructed about this matter, can only be viewed as an error on the part of a very determined arsonist, who corrected his error a few days later.
However this matter is viewed, my client's life has clearly been placed in serious and immediate danger by a determined and aggressive criminal.
I do not lightly link the defendant's name to the arsons alluded to above, but rather I do so in light of very compelling evidence, which will be outlined below), following clear threats by him to the life of my client, coupled with an assault with a knife and a vehicle by the defendant against my client. Further to this, the defendant has stalked and harassed my client on a number of occasions, with such behaviour demonstrating at the very least an intention to run an on-going campaign of fear and harassment against my client; with the clear possibility that he indeed intends to make good on his threat and murder [NAME WITHHELD TO PROTECT THE VICTIM OF THE SERIOUS OFFENCES].
My client is terrified of this man and in light of such clear criminal activity against her is very unhappy that this on-going threat remains against her, as this man is neither charged, nor in custody.
The compelling evidence which [NAME WITHHELD TO PROTECT THE VICTIM OF THE SERIOUS OFFENCES] would give against Ronald Peacock is as follows:
Following her contacting me on 12 February 2014, I took a statement from my client on 13 February 2014, the essence of which is condensed as follows, without losing any of the essential elements of her allegations, nor exaggerating or minimizing anything she said:
That on 9 January 2014 at about 10.00pm the defendant arrived outside the address of the complainant at [ADDRESS WITHHELD]. The defendant pulled up in an AU Ford Utility, with dark tinted windows. He started talking to the victim through the passenger window, while parked in the street, slightly to the left toward the pavement on [ADDRESS WITHHELD]. The complainant could not hear him and came around to the driver's side. On coming around to the driver's side, my client observed that the defendant appeared to be badly affected by drugs or alcohol or both.
My client observed that the defendant was frothing at the mouth and saying in very strange and exaggerated way: "What do you want" The defendant went on to say: "Give a message to [NAME OF MUTUAL ACQUAINTANCE, WITHHELD TO PROTECT PRIVACY OF OTHER VICTIM OF OFFENDER] from me, (referring to a friend of my client). The victim responded, (noting the condition of the defendant), by saying "Do your own messages, he's just down the driveway".
The defendant responded with again saying in an exaggerated voice: "Give a message to [NAME OF MUTUAL ACQUAINTANCE WITHHELD]." My client then said: "I'm sick of you _____ _____ trying to use me as a messenger. Go down the driveway and tell him yourself".
While sitting in the driver's seat the defendant produced a large black knife with a black handle. My client, who is a chef, recognized this as a chef's knife.
The defendant then got out of his utility vehicle with the knife and he said to my client: "I'm going to kill you bitch." My client responded: "No you're _____ not."
My client backed off. The defendant got out of the vehicle and lunged at my client with the knife several times. My client kicked the door of his car so that the door of his car went back toward him and formed a barrier between them.
The defendant then came around from the door of his car and lunged toward my client with his knife.
Throughout this attack the defendant was just several feet away from my client.
My client then ran to her car, which was just parked a few feet away, outside the driveway of [ADDRESS WITHHELD], Carterton. My client found that her car was locked and jumped into the deep gutter of [ADDRESS WITHHELD], screaming for help.
The defendant drove at my client in his vehicle, attempting to hit her. He would have succeeded, except for the fact that the gutter in [ADDRESS WITHHELD], (in which my client was standing), is unusually deep and his vehicle would have become completely stuck had he driven into the gutter.
The defendant did a U turn and turned back toward my client who had picked up a rock to deter him. My client threw the rock at the window of the defendant's vehicle. The defendant drove past the gutter and into the side of my client's vehicle, clipping the driver's side mirror, (damage done to such mirror is captured in a photograph). Paint from the defendant's vehicle is clearly visible on my client's vehicle.
That this was a terrifying incident for my client.
However, since this time, the defendant has "stalked" my client on a number of occasions: Following her to school with her son, following her to a service station and following her to Greytown. On these occasions he has parked his car, or followed my client, in order that my client would be aware that he is nearby and has the ability to harm her and her family at a time of his choosing.
That the defendant is relentless in his stalking of my client and that he has attempted to make good his threats to kill my client by in all probability, burning down her home, or arranging for someone to do this on his behalf.
That the defendant will not cease the above type of behaviour until in custody, particularly so as his behaviour is drug induced.
That my client has been forced to go into hiding, with the knowledge and support of the Police, which is totally unfair. This would not be necessary if the defendant was in custody.
That in the circumstances outlined above, the defendant ought to at the very least be charged with:
(i) Threatening to kill; and
(ii) Assault with a weapon x 2, both with a knife and a car; and
(iii) Criminal harassment
My client seriously fears for her life and accordingly I need an assurance from Police that the defendant will be charged with the offences outlined, or similar offences, on an urgent basis. Failing this, I have very clear instructions to initiate a private prosecution and to oppose bail forthwith.
Accordingly please advise me on an urgent basis if the Police intend to charge the defendant with offences as outlined above.
The circumstances are so dire for my client, (who is in hiding with your support and knowledge), and she is so badly stressed by everything that has occurred; that I can only give you until 19 February 2014 to advise me that you will take action against the defendant. Failing this I will immediately commence a private prosecution on her behalf.
Yours faithfully,
[Name of lawyer withheld for reasons of personal safety]
Here is the response to that letter. Readers will notice that this response has nothing to do with the matters raised in the letter, it refers to a completely different incident at a completely different place and time - click on the image to view, or comment below in confidence with an email address and we will mail you a copy of all evidence referred to on this website - Police are now obstructing the private prosecution and totally ignoring the concerns of this lawyer, and we have recently received a considerable amount of evidence that this is not an isolated incident, and there is considerable evidence of a pattern of this corrupt behaviour by local Police, indicating that the problem is much bigger than we thought:
No comments:
Post a Comment