NZ Police get NZ Media to sell Killing in NZ Schools as legitimate, but unfortunate for the upset killers.
Kiwi media and NZ Police give green light to the Kelstons culture of bullying being upscaled to getting away with murder. This is to set a precedent where other 17 year old men can kill other students as along as it was done in a “moment of madness”. Remember this is a school that has been no stranger to sport related violence and abuse:
Now this youth, someones beloved son and brother, Stephen Dudley is dead. He is dead because he was subjected to a brutal beating that was, and make no mistake, premeditated and involved one boy and a 17 year old man beating and kicking Stephen Dudley to death in a “moment of madness”.
It seems to us however that the school concerned could well have a number of serious problems with the way in which it has continued to educate it pupils and the values it has installed in its pupils, especially in and around the disgusting use of violence.
The NZ Police have stated the following as their reasoning for not believing that the intent to murder Stephen was present at the time of the savage beating was handed out with relish;
‘They threw the fatal punches in a “moment of madness and they will have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives”
What fucking consequences LF ask’s [?]: – given that these thugs have gotten away with murdering another smaller boy?
The New Zealand Police also report through a “supportive media” the following;
Detective Inspector Bruce Scott said a pathologist had completed a physical examination of Stephen’s body but was still doing some toxicology work. He said he could not comment on the autopsy results.
Based on the evidence presented to police thus far, neither of the accused teenagers would be charged with murder, Mr Scott said.
“There are certain intents that you have to prove for a charge of murder and I don’t believe in the circumstances as we know them at the moment that we would have those intents, or be able to prove those intents to the court.”
It seemed like “a moment of madness, and they’ll have to live with the consequences”.
According to the media Stephens family reported that the fight was pre-arranged between Stephen and another younger boy of Stephens age. Now if it was pre-arranged as a fight how can the other 15 year old boy be charged with common assault, which is the charge that both killers face at present.
LF cannot understand the name suppression issues regarding the general public as a simple inquiry of a number of students would give away the names of the killers. LF is set to make that inquiry and make a decision as to what is the best for the Global public. What’s the background of the two killers?
What the Police are hiding from the Global public.
During the fight various possible scenarios occurred. The more likely is that during the pre-arranged fight the smaller Stephen was unexpectedly getting the upper hand, and that was when the other 17 year old man “stepped in” and administered the fatal blows in a savage onslaught until Stephen was incapable of responding. Then again it may have been that Stephen was getting a hiding and the 17 year old man decided to have some fun. That’s right reader’s, one of Stephens Killers was deemed a man under the Crimes Act 1961, not a boy. Further the 15 year old killer is old enough to face a murder charge – section 22 of the New Zealand Crimes Act stipulates;
“No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of any act done or omitted by him when of the age of 10 but under the age of 14 years, unless he knew either that the act or omission was wrong or that it was contrary to law”
Whilst it is alleged that the fight was pre-arranged; LF asks was the 17 year old killers intervention and the severity of the beating premeditated as well? After all it was an arranged fight was it not.
Stephen Dudley is dead and so he cannot give evidence as to how the fight came about. When the term pre-arranged is used there are numerous possibilities.
Was Stephen bullied and humiliated in the social media of the school students and felt that he would make a stand to protect himself? If that is the case, would Stephen have been killed as a result of the fight being between the two 15 years olds?.
LF feels that it is clearly arguable that the intervention of the 17 year old man resulted in the killing, and that further this decision is a matter of the normal process of a trial of 12 of his peers.
There exists no excuse of compulsion relating to the two killers actions, and even if there were, section 24 of the New Zealand Crimes Act stipulates at sub section (2)(e) that murder [section’s 167 and 168 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961] cannot be excused by compulsion. Murder in New Zealand is defined in the following terms that apply to what is alleged to have occurred when Stephen Dudley was killed;
“S167 Murder defined
(1) Culpable homicide is murder in each of the following cases,
[b] if the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury that is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not.
[d] if the offender for any unlawful object does an act that he knows to be likely to cause death, and thereby kills any person, though he may have desired that his object should be effected without hurting anyone”
LF legal researchers argue that the charge of assault being laid against the killers imports sub section [b] in that they both committed an unlawful act, and that act resulting in the homicide.
Equally LF legal researchers believe that the fact that the Police have stated that the killers committed the homicide in a “moment of madness” imports sub section [a] in that if the killers were capable of comprehending prior to the fight that the savagery could have lead to the death of Stephen Dudley, then the threshold for murder has been well and truly passed.
In the event that the Police want to protect their options to get the right charge they could charge the killers in the alternative of manslaughter, and let the jury decide. This would mean that the killers would be charged with murder and manslaughter in the alternative if the jury decided that there was reasonable doubt as to intent to cause death, but sufficient evidence that the killers acted negligently causing death. Homicide is defined in the New Zealand Crimes Act at section 158;
“Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly, or indirectly, by any means whatsoever”
Our legal researchers clearly believe that the facts as depicted in the media to this time indicate that Stephen Dudley was involved in an arranged fight where death would not have occurred, but for the violent and overpowering intervention of a 17 year old man which allowed the application of such reckless forces to Stephens head and neck area that the death of Stephen was likely to ensue immediately, or at such later time, [as a result of the injuries caused by direct correlation to the severity of the attack].
Self defence is nowhere present – in fact Stephen was killed because he could not defend himself against the severity of the attack committed by his killers in what appears to be a callous and inhumane manner. Did the two perpetrators attend to Stephen’s care or was it others. It appears that this has been answered by eyewitness accounts.
LF assumes it is not normal for such attacks to occur in New Zealand Schools, but the New Zealand Police talk of such behavior being commonplace at Kelston High School.
Manslaughter is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In simple terms the killer is liable for the actus reus of gross negligence resulting in the death of another human being that is somehow excused as being less than reckless. In common parlance the difference is becoming less certain and a number of alternate charge prosecutions are run to let the jury decide.
Probably the most famous such prosecution resulted from a report written by Civil Rights and Justice Campaigner Dermot Nottingham that promoted “one law for all”. Nottingham argued that the Police Officer Killer Constable Keith Abbott had numerous alternatives to using a gun, but chose to shoot Steven Wallace 5 times, three in the back, to insure that Wallace was killed. Wallace had been smashing windows along the main street of the New Plymouth district town of Waitara, Taranaki.
Nottingham’s report went virile and received over 700,000 views in a few days after its release. Nottingham’s website also displayed the picture of the Killer Constable Keith Abbott which the media had refused to name. Subsequent attempts by the Police Association [headed by intellectually invalided Greg O’Connor] to have name suppression imposed were defeated by Nottingham in defended High Court proceedings. Nottingham’s report has since been translated to over 10 languages inclusive of Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russian, German, and Dutch.
Nottingham’s report disagreed with the findings of an alleged independent report of a senior police officer and severely embarrassed Greg O’Connor and Inspector Bryan Pearce.
The Police Associations lawyers defeated the charge of murder at depositions but then the Wallace family were successful in overturning that decision by order of High Court Justice Sian Elias, who on the first page of her judgment spoke of a private individual who would promote further criminal proceedings if these proceedings would not follow what would be the normal course. That person was, LF believes, Dermot Nottingham, who had indicated as much, when being interviewed by the New Zealand media. Elias’s decision was in essence it was not up to anyone but 12 jurors to decide.
Further Reading: Crown: murder accused cried, ‘I hope he’s dead!
The matter went to trial and the Killer, Constable Keith Abbott, was found not guilty on both counts. The Wallace family, [to this day], believe that the trial was rigged and LF agrees.
As an example of this improper behavior the Police had at times 20 senior uniformed police officers in the Court who were not involved in the proceedings. That was like having 20 Mongrel Mob members unrelated to the proceedings being allowed to wear their patches to influence the jury.
But no matter the outcome the Killer Constable Keith Abbott had his day in Court to prove the doubt. It should not be up to Police Officers to decide what a killers intent [relating to causing a violent death], was at the time of the homicide.
In law we are told that;- If murder is not a “moment of madness” what is? Is not madness recklessness, lack of care, getting carried away etc.
The two killers lawyer John Munro made this obtuse statement to the New Zealand media;
“They are very upset for everything. They’re just upset all round and they are taking sometime to settle down and reflect on things”
What a completely moronic thing to say about two killers using reckless force to end the life of a very much loved 15 year old son, brother, nephew, and friend.
That statement by lawyer Munro, and the Polices position, are farcical for the following reasons.
The actions of the two killers are similar to a boy driving a car in a pre-arranged race against another boy, and then one of the boys being assisted by another boy to drive their cars at very high speed into the other boys drivers and passengers doors “in a moment of madness” and the other boy dying as a direct result of their respective “moment of madness”.
If a jury found the drivers guilty of murder how would you think the trial judge would confirm his beliefs as to their actions being anything but premeditated and murderous deserved of little mitigation. Of course most killers are remorseful after the event, but that remorse is no excuse for the crime; – it is to be evaluated when confirming sentence. Even a jury would be directed to ignore any statements about remorse. What occurred directs findings on facts and thus guilt or innocence.
When looked at in general terms how are the actions of the two killers that took Stephen Dudley’s life different to those of Clayton Weatherston.
Sure Weatherston stabbed his victim Sophie Elliot 216 times but it was most likely that her injuries were fatal within the first 5 to 6 stabs, as her mother reported screaming for a short period. As for the other 200 or so wounds that goes to the severity of the attack “in a moment of madness”.
As a direct result of the prosecution of Clayton Weatherston, and his defence lawyer arguing the defence of provocation, the Crimes Act was amended to repeal the defence of provocation.
This means that the two killers of Stephen Dudley cannot rely on the second killer, the 17 year old man, “opting in” to beat Stephen because of anything Stephen did. Stephen is in the clear but LF expects the New Zealand Police and the media to “paint a different picture” of Stephen if the call for murder –manslaughter charges mount.
Equally the 17 year old killer could have intervened to stop the fight, as indeed could all number of other boys that were present.
A clear decision was made at some point by the 17 year old man to “opt in” in order to apply reckless force against a much smaller 15 year old boy whilst the smaller boy was defending himself against another 15 year old.
Anyone can say that the force they used was not the force that was intended, but that is a defence for a jury to hear and decide. Again the New Zealand Police Service are acting as Judge and jury and this is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Section 28 [in Part 3 Miscellaneous provisions] of the Act states for the avoidance of doubt;
28 Other rights and freedoms not affected
An existing right or freedom shall not be held to be abrogated or restricted by reason only that the right or freedom is not included in this Bill of Rights or is included only in part.
The right to a fair trial is not just for the accused. A fair trial of events is the entire process from when certain facts are alleged to have occurred, and the Police have sufficient evidence that those facts may be sufficiently proven to have occurred.
As already stated it has been allegedly established that whilst a pre-arranged fight was occurring a 17 year old man entered the fight to assist a friend or even a relative [LF believes that the identity of the 17 year old man is suppressed because it would likely also identify his accomplice].
As a result of that intervention both men continued the attack and used such reckless abandon of force that the force applied killed Stephen.
Interestingly the Police allege that Stephen died in hospital as a result of his injuries. But the eyewitness account’s of fellow students does not support this Police statement;
“There was just a bunch of boys having some fights up there … I came back and he was on the ground, gone. So me and my mate gave him CPR. It was too late.”
The shite tabloid the New Zealand Herald alleged the following occurred in the same article [tp://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10889177] where the eyewitnesses account that Stephen was dead at the scene was also covered. It would appear to us that the two killers had exited stage left leaving Stephen cold dead as a direct result of their actions;
“Stephen died in hospital on Wednesday night from injuries he received in the fight after practice had finished”
LF accepts that the two eyewitnesses were not experts at resuscitation, or determining whether Stephen was “dead”, but it says a lot that it appeared to them that Stephen was gone. Normally this can be determined by various methods inclusive of feeling for a pulse for a prolonged period of time, whether the eyes are open and the pupils fixed, there is no breathing, the person passes bowel and bladder contents, the body loses temperature and becomes pale, and suffers rigor mortis.
LF believes the NZ Herald and the Police have concocted a story relying on the medical certificate as to the time of death being “at hospital” when a doctor was satisfied that Stephen was dead in that he could not be resuscitated, and had no brain activity.
One of LF’s researches is a medical intern and she has clearly indicated that she believes that Stephen was likely dead at the scene [as a direct result of the actions of the killers] when the eyewitnesses failed at resuscitation and would have gone through the normal processes of checking for breathing etc.
LF awaits the pictures of Stephens injuries and the pathologists report on the extent of the injuries suffered as a result of the killers. LF’s medical intern believes that Stephen may have suffered a severe fracture to his cervical spine causing the crushing or complete severing of the spinal cord.
It is understood that some offending causes the perpetrator to also become a kind of victim, but prosecuting such offending is not just about the conviction being obtained – sometimes it is about deterrence to the greater audience, and sometimes is just about due process. Stephen Dudley did not die by accident –both killers admit to their lethal actions being a “moment of madness”, and unfortunately for them, that amounts to murder and not manslaughter.
(As an aside: As a group LF have spent many months researching, collecting and collating evidence that we will soon be bringing our readers, granting an in-depth incite that looks at the New Zealand police force. Specificly a select group of officers’s and their targeting of individuals for reasons, given the facts we have received, could only have been executed on the basis of a personal grudge. We will then look at the very serious consequences that this corrupt practice has so often seen unfold; often with the implicit consent of senior commanding officers: