Conspiracy to Falsely Accuse

Detective Malcolm John Thomas, Stanley Matthew Willcox and Senior Sergeant Alan Davidson had been working together since the 4th July 1987. Willcox had been defaming his subjects for years; telephoning Finance Companies, Insurers Loss Adjusters, Banks and anyone else prepared to listen.

Following Willcox’s call of the 4th June 1987 Thomas was on the job almost immediately first by visiting the National Bank sometime between the 6th June and the 19th July1987, immediately prior to being charged and suspended from duties over the Dickey Maxwell affair.

National Bank Manager, Bruce Banwell

Bent Cop, Malcolm John Thomas

Both Thomas and Senior Constable Hay attended the Bank, where Thomas attempted to obtain private and confidential bank records without the account holders authority or the required search warrant. Fortunately the Manager, Bruce Banwell; a Justice of the Peace, had knowledge of the law and was not interested in co-operating. Thomas, like Willcox had hoped that his perceived credibility as a Police Officer would some how elicit the managers co-operation.

Banwell  however sent Thomas and Hay away; advising them to get a search warrant. They never returned. why? They had absolutely no lawful justification for attempting to obtain the record’s in the first place let alone the necessary search warrant.

Thomas had been on nothing more than a fishing expedition – on Willcox’s behalf. Both men were after the names of the Finance Companies, details of the loans they had provided and any additional financial information that would assist them in their criminal activities – which started with an attempted opposition to a liquor licence without lawful justification – failure to obtain the license would have caused serious financial loss – a fact that the police involved were well aware of.

Years of requests have resulted in the Police wilfully failing to officially investigate and explain the visit to the bank, which of course is further evidence of  Thomas’s malevolent and corrupt intent. Chief Inspector Whiro Ratahi however did recall the event, the names of the officers involved and the complaint – unrelated documents recently released also corroborate Ratahi’s diary and recollections.

Eight months after Thomas’s visit to the bank Willcox had been successful in causing many other Financial Institutions to withdraw loan offers and agreements at the eleventh hour. Subsequently the Companies were under duress. This duress it must be stressed had nothing whatsoever to do with the businesses themselves or the way in which they were being operated – all had had very strong cash flows with the exception of the extraordinary costs associated with the attempt to derail the liquor license application and the devastation of cyclone Bola -They were however able to slowly build following those events.

The businesses ultimately failed as a result of the conspiracy Thomas and Willcox had set in motion to incite creditors to repossess equipment vital to the day to day operation of the enterprises – this in turn impacted on the cash flow – the result was catastrophic causing the loss of 6.5 million dollars and the further losses the legitimate creditors incurred.

Simultaneously the financier, Registered Securities Limited (RSL) collapsed and failed to perform on the remaining three hundred thousand dollar draw down,  funds that would have seen the last of the creditors on the restaurant project paid – the other projects were free of creditors and had been operating successfully for almost 2 years, a fact that Jenni McManus and the NBR got seriously wrong in the articles.

Jenni McManus NBR

It is also important to note that RSL was a lender of last resort. Its interest rates were exceptionally high – the only reason that the loan had been arranged with RSL in the first place was that Willcox had covertly caused the collapse of a preferred loan for $680’000, specifically designed to consolidate the additional costs (delays, licensing) in developing the restaurant project alone. The loan which had been arranged with National Mutual some months earlier cancelled with National Mutual citing information received from a “very credible source” – the broker involved claiming that the very credible source was in fact an unnamed Police officer – now known to be Stanley Matthew Willcox.

Not only had Thomas incited the creditors to repossess vital chattels he had them assist in co-opting Jenni McManus and her writing of  The National Business Reviews articles, Thomas and Willcox knew that this would stop any attempt to refinance. Of course McManus at this stage was oblivious to her part in the scheme  – The Police had in effect criminally interfered with civil contracts,  maliciously engineered a serious commercial business collapse and co-opted the media to assist- had these and other criminal interferences not occurred the businesses would have continued, as they had,  to be extremely successful.

The liquidator of Registered Securities, John Tuck and the solicitor Roderick Fee of  Bell, Gully, Buddle and Weir quickly realised the advantage of joining Willcox and Thomas. They then utalised the corrupt cops in an attempt to avoid RSL’s liability – For having failed to perform on the additional $300,000.00 draw down – money destined to pay the last of creditors – The loan repayments to RSL fell into arrears because of the Police and Health Departments criminal attacks. A restaurant without plant and furniture tends not to be able to operate, destroying the cashflow, common sense really but Jenni McManus was’nt able or worse chose not to reflect that in her biased police inspired reports.

Thomas and Willcox having first contacted the creditors to solicit complaints then started laying criminal charges – designed purely to muddy the waters, conceal the Police’s criminal involvement and the activities and motivations of Thomas and Willcox.

Thomas in particular, personally involved in overseeing the repossessions, was particularly vociferous in his subsequent actions going so far as to lie about what had in fact occured both during the repossessions and in police interviews following those repossessions – His actions designed to facilitate false charges being laid

Thomas did not know however that the intended victims were on to him. Having had previous experience of the way in which Willcox operated they quickly formed the view that Willcox may have been behind the conspiracy – a view, that months later, was confirmed.

As a result of Thomas’s suspected involvement the interviews were taped, not by the police, but by the intended victims. Thomas’s formal Police reports detailing the interviews and recommending that charges be laid were a total fabrication – His actions were criminal and his corruption evident in the serious anomalies between his written account of the interviews and the tape recordings made by his intended victims.

Thomas, perhaps not realising the experience his subjects already had with Police corruption as a result Willcox’s previous behaviour, attempted to write the statements in a particular way – designed to facilitate criminal charges being laid. His subjects however could see what he was attempting to do and declined further requests for interview, demanding instead through their Barrister, Russell Fairbrother, that an officer from Police National Police headquarters be appointed to conduct any further interviews – this demand was refused by the Commissioner John Jamieson – Jamieson had long been aware of Willcox’s criminal offending but again failed to intervene.

Commissioner of Police John Jamieson

Barrister Russell Fairbrother

On Wednesday the 31st August 1988 the intended victims attended the Gisborne Police station at 11.00am, as required by Thomas, to make a formal statement. The statement was made subsequent to an initial routine request to the police that they investigate the break and enter of the restaurant and the possible theft of good’s – being the furniture.

During both Police interviews Thomas can be heard warning his victims that it was an offence to make a false complaint, he goes on to say that this warning is routine Police proceedure – which of course was not at all true.

It is clear when listening to the tape that the victims simply wanted Police to investigate the possibility that a crime may have been committed and that in the event that police determined that it hadn’t then they wanted to see evidence that supported the Police’s position. In the event that the repossessions had been unlawful they wanted Thomas’s mate Dimery charged.

Steve Dimery Ex-cop repossession agent and Thomas’s mate.

Thomas however already had answers to the questions being put to him during the interview but feigned ignorance – He had taken part in the repossessions with his side kick ex-cop repoman Steve Dimery – Thomas had always known that the creditor was acting under a retention of title clause even before Dimery had been hired, Warwick Orr, the owner of Titan Metal Industries, had explained it all to him days before – his victims didn’t know, that’s why they wanted answers.

Thomas however had to keep his intended victims in the dark so as to be able to lay the criminal charge of making a false complaint, he couldn’t disclose his knowledge without loosing that opportunity – he was also no doubt aware that had his victims known about the retention of title clause or any planned repossession they would have initiated  civil action to prevent it; even after the event.

Thomas did not want that happening; it would have ruined his plan; after all this was the reason he had in fact recommended his mate Steve Dimery.  This ensured he had total control, Dimery a mate, was bent and would co-operate.

The interview however had not gone well or as planned, a minor detail, Thomas would simply lie in his report:

“The complaint was taken by Constable Downie, the watch house keeper who was ignorant of any sales contract and authority to enter and seize”

” This complaint was made by the XXXXX in full knowledge of the terms and conditions of sale. “there complaint  was contrary to fact and without belief in the truth”. A written statement of complaint was obtained by myself on 31/08/88 from XXXX XXXX (attached).”

“A similar statement was requested from XXXXX, but this was declined. Their complaint is a contradiction of clause 6 “ownership of goods is retained by the Company until payment in full is made for the good’s, a fact known by XXXXXXX.”

“At the conclusion of the statement I noticed XXXXX XXXXX waiting for his Brothers outside the station. He was standing beside his car and I spoke to him from the window. I told him that I wanted to see him. He looked at me, did not speak and then got into the drivers seat of the car.”

“All three were demanding that Steve Dimery be charged with theft and that his private investigators license be revoked.”This complaint appears to be made out of malice and for the purpose of  embarrassing the Police whom they have publicly stated  were present and had assisted Steve Dimery with the repossession of XXXXXX property”

“I believe that there is sufficient evidence to charge both XXXXXX and XXXXXX with making a false allegation under section 24 of the sumary offences 1981 act.”

Gisborne Police Station 1988

Thomas seriously misrepresented what had in fact occurred during this interview; deciding instead to totally manufacture his own version of events – designed to facilitate laying a criminal charge, which as you can see he later attempted to orchestrate.  Detective Thomas had also lied about leaning out of his office window and asking to see one of the men, who was allegedly standing by a car waiting for his brothers, according to Thomas this man apparently ignored his request by not responding and getting into the vehicle .

Nearing the end of the tape the cars central locking is heard being activated, thus making it impossible for XXXXX to have got into the car as Thomas claims prior to the arrival of his brothers following the interview – he didn’t have the keys. The tape is finally stopped once all three men are in the vehicle and driving away,  Thomas’s purported request simply did not occur – as an aside in the full tape recording  Thomas is advised, during the interview,  that the process had to be concluded quickly as one of the men needed to catch a flight at 12.30pm, by the time the interview concluded that left 10 minutes to get to the airport.

The men at no stage declined anything, when Thomas requested an additional statement he is clearly told that there is nothing to be added to what has already been said and that the subject of the completed interview had made the compliant on behalf of the company – a point that Thomas does not appear to object to.

With these occurances in mind why would Thomas then lean out the window and ask to speak with the third man standing by the car;  why?  – Well of course he hadn’t, the tape is irrefutable evidence of that. The truth is that Detective Malcolm Thomas lied and simply invented the events surrounding the whole interview in yet another attempt at falsely incriminating his victims.

District Commander Rana Waitai

Detective Sergeant Gary Condon

Thomas lied extensively throughout this particular report and many others. His only intention was to lay many more false charges against the men and other members of their family. Thomas failed to provide answers for any of the questions put to him he failed to put the questions to his mate Steve Dimery; preferring instead as planned to lay criminal charges against his victims.

At the end of this interview a second request is made of Detective Sergeant Gary Condon;

“Mr Condon did you get hold of the information on who it was that went along to my my bank”.

Detective Thomas, the very man who had been to the bank and attempted unlawfully to obtain the bank records is present, but not a word. Thomas knew that he had been responsible but was not owning up to it – had it been a kosher police inquiry he would have simply admitted the activity – as would his superior Detective  Sergeant Gary Condon.

Detective Condon later conspired to conceal the information, going so far as to lie in a memo to the then District Commander Rana Waitai. In that memo Detective Sergeant Condon stated that he had no knowledge of the information or the request.  He further stated that he had no recollection of the conversation requesting the detail recorded in the conversation.

Categorised in: , , , , ,

No Comments

  • Phillip says:

    Hi guys, Is Keith Mitchellmore from Hilite Industries they same man convicted of sexual offences against children in 1989. If it is, this fellow was convicted of 1 charge of sexual violation, 2 counts of indecent assault and 1 count of inducing an indecent assault. He spent 3 years in prison for it. Interesting to know if he was conspiring to falsly accuse with the currupt NZ Cops at the same time. Appreciate any info yo have on him.

    Keep up the good work…it’s not often the victims of this sought of thing have so much evidence!

  • Crimes Act 1961 No 43

    Section 116 Conspiring to defeat justice

    Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction.
    Compare: 1908 No 32 s 137
    Section 116: amended, on 18 June 2002, by section 6(1) of the Crimes Amendment Act 2002 (2002 No 20).

  • Crimes Act 1961 No 43

    Section 115 Conspiring to bring false accusation

    Every one who conspires to prosecute any person for any alleged offence, knowing that person to be innocent thereof, is liable—
    (a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to preventive detention, or to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more:
    (b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term less than 3 years.
    Compare: 1908 No 32 s 136
    Section 115(a): amended, on 26 December 1989, by section 3(4) of the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act 1989 (1989 No 119).

  • Section 108, Perjury defined
    (1) Perjury is an assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his evidence on oath, whether the evidence is given in open court or by affidavit or otherwise, that assertion being known to the witness to be false and being intended by him to mislead the tribunal holding the proceeding.
    (2) In this section the term oath includes an affirmation, and also includes a declaration made under section 13 of the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957.
    (3) Every person is a witness within the meaning of this section who actually gives evidence, whether he is competent to be a witness or not, and whether his evidence is admissible or not.
    (4) Every proceeding is judicial within the meaning of this section if it is held before any of the following tribunals, namely:
    (a) any court of justice:
    (b) the House of Representatives or any Committee of that House:
    (c) any arbitrator or umpire, or any person or body of persons authorised by law to make an inquiry and take evidence therein upon oath:
    (d) any legal tribunal by which any legal right or liability can be established:
    (e) any person acting as a court or tribunal having power to hold a judicial proceeding:
    (f) a disciplinary officer, the Summary Appeal Court of New Zealand, or the Court Martial of New Zealand acting under the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971.
    (5) Every such proceeding is judicial within the meaning of this section whether the tribunal was duly constituted or appointed or not, and whether the proceeding was duly instituted or not, and whether the proceeding was invalid or not.
    Compare: 1908 No 32 s 130
    Section 108(4)(f): substituted, on 1 July 2009, by section 81 of the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Act (No 2) 2007 (2007 No 98).

  • Crimes Act 1961
    Section 113, Fabricating evidence

    Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to mislead any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which section 108 applies, fabricates evidence by any means other than perjury.
    Compare: 1908 No 32 s 135

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: