New Zealands media has been awash in recent days with the story of Big Micky Vukcevic who has admitted falsifying his CV, by adding the undergrad degree of LLB, a qaulification that he simply did not have. Like many before him Vukcevic had nothing more than a BA to his name. Fraudulant behaviour of this sort by Kiwi civil servants and consultants is of concern to us here in Australia. We’ve just seen the case of the New Zealander who took the Queensland Health department for millions. Theres another case however, one thats remained concealed. Its the case of a New Zealander who, a couple of years ago took up residence in Perth, Australia. A woman who lists amongst her many accomplishments having worked for the Australian Department Of Prime Minister and Cabinent. She has even linked the claim, noted in her online “linkedin” profile to the Australian Government website of the Department Of Prime Minister and Cabinent.
The woman that LF has identified is one Alison Dalziel, ex Kiwi civil Servant and the sister of ex New Zealand member of parliament, turned Christchurch Mayor, Leane Dalziel. Alison Dalziel is, it would appear, attempting to mislead the Australian public. In fact she is obviously attempting to mislead anyone viewing her online CV, inclusive of Australian companies and or individuals who might be considering employing her or working with the company she has apparently establishd here in Perth Australia, a company called Localise Pty Limited, of which she is a director.
Dalziel in fact has never worked for the Australian Office of Prime Minister and Cabinet, of that LF is certain. In fact at the time Dalziel falsely claims to have done so, between March 2003 and December 2004, a period of 20 months, she was in fact working for the New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clarke.
Back in December 2012 LF was going to run a series of stories on the Peter Ellis case and the people involved, until that is, we discovered that Dalziel had relocated to Perth, Western Australia in 2009. At that point we dispatched one of the team to WA for their Xmas break, to do a little digging and subsequently decided to hold off publishing the original story.
Lianne Audrey Dalziel was born in 1960 raised in Christchurch, and attended Canterbury University. She graduated with a law degree and was admitted to the Bar. She served as the legal officer for the Canterbury Hotel and Hospital Workers’ Union, and later became the union’s Secretary. She also participated in national groups such as the Federation of Labour and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. – Wikipedia
Name suppression rules need to be tougher5 OCT 2010
Labour believes rules around name suppression need to be consistent and tougher, says Labour Justice spokesperson Lianne Dalziel.
“If the rules aren’t consistent, it undermines confidence in the justice system,” Lianne Dalziel said.
“If you have one set of rules for the privileged, the wealthy and celebrities, and another set of rules for everyone else, as well as speculation about who is hiding behind suppression orders, it becomes very damaging.
“The case that recently came to light involving former ACT MP David Garrett stealing the identity of a dead baby is a classic example,” Lianne Dalziel said
“His hypocrisy in seeking a suppression order was matched by ACT leader Rodney Hide’s in hiding behind the suppression order and encouraging David Garrett to become a candidate, and by the Sensible Sensible Trust’s Garth McVicar in providing David Garrett with support in court.”
Lianne Dalziel said trial by some media had become an unfortunate reality.
“Fuelling the frenzy with suppression orders that don’t have any justification beyond the ‘celebrity’ status of the person who has been charged doesn’t help.
“People are innocent until proven guilty, but if suppression is allowed inconsistently or unjustifiably, it doesn’t promote faith in the system.
“Being wealthy or famous should not be a reason to get name suppression, nor should a lawyer who has stolen the identity of a dead child be entitled to get name suppression.
“Name suppression should only be used to protect the rights of victims and it should be used only on rare occasions”
As aforesaid, Alison Dalziel is of course, at best, misleading, the reader of her online CV, she may in fact even be in breach of Australian Commonwealth or Western Australian law, both Commonwealth and State jurisdictions. So is the bullshit CV merely a mistake on Dalziels part? LF suspects not.
There is no plausable reason for Dalziel to be falsely claiming to have been an advisor to the Australian Prime Minister. Sure she could claim that the equivalent New Zealand Govt Department didn’t have an online presence, but of course in that scenario she would be lying again, as the equivalent New Zealand Govt site can be found at http://www.dpmc.govt.nz. So why then has Dalziel used the Australian Govt references, http://au.linkedin.com/company/department-of-the-prime-minister-and-cabinet?trk=ppro_cprof and http://www.dpmc.gov.au?
Well LF believes that the answer to that question is quite simple. Dalziel has used the Australian references as a ruse. A ploy designed to throw researchers off the scent, her scent and its because, we believe, Dalziel does not want researchers linking her, and her reinvented identity and life, to that of the woman who played a major role in the false allegations against Peter Ellis. In fact until now the New Zealand Police have played a major role in ensuring that her identity remained concealed. We know for a fact that the New Zealand police were instrumental in having the above Michael Laws show sound clip removed from YouTube. An online search of Dalziels name reveals very little that would indicate her involvement in the Ellis case. Extensive research has managed to identify just one web item (outside dedicated Ellis case resources), a single lonely comment on a Google Groups forum dedicated to the detective in charge of the case, The now infamous Christchurch Detective Colin Eade who is now living a quiet life, just one hundred or so kilometres from the scene of his crime, in the South Canterbury township of Ashburton:
Former Detective COLIN EADE on 20/20 Sunday 31 August, 2003, with
regards to his work on the PETER ELLIS investigation would not tell us
what he was up to regarding intimacy with complainant kid’s parents.
Between episodes of work and depression he WAS SHAGGING, among others,
the SISTER of a prominent LABOUR MP.
That silly woman, a mother of infant twin daughter complainants, with
absolutely no good judgment, taste or morals was ALISON DALZIEL,
sister of a current Labour Minister LIANNE DALZIEL..
Did you really need to know this?
One would expect the above Google thread to be removed, over the coming days, sooner rather than later once the New Zealand police are made aware. Somewhat strangely however, given the notoriety of the Ellis case, there are no photographs of Detective Colin Eade, the plaintiff rooting detective, its almost as if the man never existed, except of course for a fairly recent newspaper article announcing that an ex cop, who had been granted one of New Zealands all too familiar name suppression orders, had been in trouble and again before the courts, and an online white pages listing for one “C. Eade” of 15 Brucefield Ave, Netherby, Ashburton, New Zealand:
Eade’s questionable relationships with the Civic childcare centre parents, and one of the involved DSW staff did not come out during the trial. Early in the investigation, Eade unsuccessfully sexually propositioned at least one mother (of the first child to formally make an allegation). After the case, he had sexual affairs with two of the childcare centre mothers, and a DSW employee. This brings into question his impartiality. He may well have been trying to please these women for personal reasons. He spoke to the children formally, and one can assume informally. He may have had cause to support the mothers’ allegations or fears when speaking to the children, rather than investigating without fear or favour. Zelas, the prosecution, Justice Williamson, and Eichelbaum clearly had excessive confidence in the quality of the police investigation.
Social influence probably affected the disclosure process. An evidential interviewer or police officer would talk to a suspected victim shortly before the child was formally interviewed. Such conversations were not recorded. Colin Eade, who led the police investigation, monitored many of the formal interviews. He spent up to thirty minutes with chil- dren prior to their interviews and had, according to Lamb, “ample and unchecked opportunities” to shape their claims. He also made unscheduled visits to the children’s homes “to try and [help them] overcome [their fear] prior to evidential interviews”. (Police Report Form, 19 March 1992)
The Ellis case stinks to high heaven, its rotten to the core, its putrid, the secrecy, the involvement of bent cops, a New Zealand police area command that is historically well known for its sexual perversion, police brutality, extreme homophobia and corruption and then there’s the politicians, Lianne Dalziel, Phil Goff, Mark Goshe and later, during the period 1999 -2008, Labour Prime Minster Helen Clarke, the very same Prime Minister that Alison Dalziel served during a 20 month period between 2003 – 2004, the same period in which the Ellis case was again the topic of a national debate, and calls for justice; the very same period in which the investigative current affairs franchise, 20/20, ran an exposé on the case and Alison Dalziels, whilst she was not named, intimate relationship with Detective Colin Eade. That show aired in the August of 2003, just four months after Alison Dalziel had taken up her new, and oh-so convenient, position with Helen Clarkes Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
So we’ve established that Alison Dalziel now lives in Perth Western Australia, has knowingly falsified her credentials in an online CV, and now runs her own company, a consultancy geared toward Government, quasi Govenment and or NGO’s. We’ve also established that despite her claiming to have worked for the Australian Prime Minister, at that time John Howard, she had in fact been working for New Zealands Prime Minister Helen Clarke.
We’ve also established that this woman was amongst a whole gaggle of fucked up women who were responsible for making false complaints against the five Christchurch Civic Creche workers, including Peter Ellis, and that she is likely one of the women who seriously compromised any chance Peter Ellis ever had of receiving a fair trial by conducting an affair with the completely fucked up and corrupt Detective Colin Eade during the police investigation.
Fuck us sideways, which no doubt the New Zealand police would undoubtedly attempt had team LF been Kiwi’s; just how fucked up is the New Zealand criminal Justice system? Well the answer to that question, if not already obvious to the readers of Lauda Finem, will become increasingly clear as our series on the Ellis case slowly unfolds over the coming months.
The team at LF will be publishing material over the coming twelve months on the Peter Ellis case, we suspect New Zealands most notorious case of malicious prosecution, wrongful conviction and ongoing injustice. A case that has not been addressed, despite the country’s hack politicians promising to do so for decades, despite academics spending months researching and publishing award winning books; that go a long way in proving the prosecutions case a complete and utter sham. Yet despite some very smart and dedicated “out of town” people lining up to support Ellis over the past two decades in his quest for justice, despite a petition signed by some of New Zealands most notable and prominent people, justice has yet to be served; the question must therefore be asked, why? Unlike so many other cases, some arguably far more serious and less convincing, why has justice in Peter Ellis’s case remained elusive.
When we first started to look at the case back in 2012 it looked pretty much like any other of the period, so why the need for the more than obvious political game playing and resistance? As we dug a little deeper however, and looked at some of the concealed factors, personalities and events that had remained very much outside everyones focus during the trial, the so called psych evidence, and the bent prosecution, we started to trip over some pretty nasty political involvement. Aspects to the case that have remained concealed and actively prevented, often by the New Zealand police and its courts, from becoming public knowledge.
These political tentacles, the main stream media affiliations and the attached nefarious personal relationships, started to appear once we had identified a few of the key names that the police, the crown prosecutor, several official judicial and ministerial inquiries, and the country’s courts had gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal, starting with the name suppression orders granted by Judge Neil Williamson at the conclusion of Peter Ellis’s 1993 trial. Identities long since buried, the identities of Peter Ellis’s accusers, a group of very strange, in most cases, fucked up women and men, people that have remained concealed for years, often behind fucked up pseudonyms, the likes of the most outspoken antagonist and pulp fiction author “JOY BANDER”.
“In case you need reminding, I wish to point out that Alec* & I are the ones who got Tommy* to talk in the first place”
(* pseudonyms used in her book “A Mother’s Story”)
Armed with these names the team at LF have unearthed some very strange connections and some even stranger institutional associations. Organisations that one would never have suspected could posibly have had any role to play in the Ellis case. Leftist leaning labour movements such as the Canterbury and Westland Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union, its organisers, men such as Andy Anderson, Robert Hutcheon, Mark Goshe and a young legal officer, fresh out of Canterbury University’s faculty of Law, Lianne Dalziel.
“Howard Broad’s press conference in October 1992 destroyed the careers and previously unblemished reputations of four well-qualified, experienced and dedicated child care workers” – Lynley Hood, A City Possessed
In fact LF believes that its these social connections that may well hold one of the keys to the Peter Ellis case, and the reasons behind the cases failure to gain any real traction, constantly hitting the proverbial brick wall, a wall that has grown inexplicably in size over the years, growth that “coincidentally” mirrored the rise and growth in power of certain politicians that have for decades remained concealed behind the name suppressions of a handful of accusers. Power which these politicians, perhaps understandably, have been very reluctant to relinquish.
LF is aware that Lianne Dalziel and her Christchurch union buddies, and of course various other young aspiring politicians during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, acted in extraordinarily corrupt ways, as have many of the Dalziel sisters known Uni associates, all of whom attended the University of Canterbury, in particular the University’s faculties of Law and business. One of those Cantebury Uni good old boys being none other than the prosecutor in the Ellis case, Brent Stanaway.
LF is also aware that Lianne Dalziels recently appointed press secretary, Chris Rennie, is corrupt and has assisted in concealing corrupt behaviour on the part of Christchurch Police officers, and that he personally has, in order to conceal that corruption, engaged in press smear campaigns specifically designed to destroy the credibility of the various witnesses and victims tartgeted in unrelated cases. We are therefore very well placed to look at the Ellis case with a more astute set of eyes.
Its LF’s view that much of the various other commentary and material written in and around the Ellis case, whilst extraordinary in its research, accuracy, detail and the academic rigour applied, has, as is often the case, been compromised by one thing alone. That is, the academics, investigators and authors had, in trying to appear impartial, avoided courting controversy, by starting from exactley the same default position as most unsuccessful crusaders for a cause; that being, that nothing of what had happened to Peter Ellis has been attributed to intentional, malevolent and or corrupt behaviour, that the police and Christchurch Crown law offices where in most of the efforts held to be honest upright citizens and not the systemically corrupt arseholes that in reality they were, and in some cases still are, the default position assumed by most of the commentators has been, in LF’s view, the single greatest weakness that has seen the Ellis case languish for what is now approaching 21 years, slowly, by design, passing into history, and the obscurity of New Zealands twisted legal mythology.
So to start we invite LF readers to watch the three videos below, excerpts from a televised documentary that aired in New Zealand around a decade ago, it will undoubtedly make your blood boil, it certainly did ours.
Part One – A question of judgement – Peter Ellis in his own words
Part Two – A question of Judgement
Part Three – A question of Judgement
Credits – A question of Judgement
Alison Dalziel’s Experience
Privately Held; 1-10 employees; Management Consulting industry
July 2012 – Present (1 year 9 months) Western Australia
Providing consulting services in the local government sector, including:
– strategic and corporate planning
– structure and business processes
– management and leading change
– economic and regional development
Nonprofit; 201-500 employees; Events Services industry
October 2013 – Present (6 months) Western Australia, Australia
– is a forum for kiwis in WA to network
– is a support network for kiwis arriving in WA
– runs kiwi events in WA
– maintains and builds networks back between New Zealand and Australia
– is a voice for kiwis in Australia
Dalziel Strategy and Performance Pty Ltd
July 2011 – July 2012 (1 year 1 month) Western Australia, Australia
Consulting in the local government sector, focusing on strategic and corporate planning, structure and management, and economic development.
Privately Held; 11-50 employees; Management Consulting industry
September 2009 – July 2011 (1 year 11 months)
Morrison Low consults in the public and private sectors with a particular focus on local government.
July 2008 – August 2009 (1 year 2 months)
Working across central and local governnment and the economic development sector, undertaking a variety of strategy and organisational projects.
Group Manager, Labour Market Development
Government Agency; 1001-5000 employees; Government Administration industry
December 2004 – July 2008 (3 years 8 months)
For most of my time at the Department I headed up the labour market development area which worked with sectors and regions on strategies to improve labour market outcomes.
Government Agency; 501-1000 employees; Government Administration industry
March 2003 – December 2004 (1 year 10 months)
Responsible for the Sustainable Development Programme of Action and adviser to the Prime Minister on sustainable development, regional development and local government.
*click “Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet” while it lasts. LF will be checking daily to establish the date and time removed and replacing with video demonstrating the link operating)
Source: Text, inclusive of hyper links, retrieved from http://au.linkedin.com/in/alisondalziel on the 1st March 2014 at 0500hrs (Netherlands, CET)
Some issues are beyond politics. The Peter Ellis case and convictions are one of them.
I totally endorse the call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Ellis case. One needs the latitude a full commission of inquiry has, to deal with the public’s deep scepticism over this case.
It should be in the interest of all politicians for there to be confidence in the justice system. The Ellis case corrosively undermines that confidence. While convictions are not a public popularity contest, I know of almost no-one who thinks the Ellis convictions are safe. And this is based on a massive amount of published research on the case.
Annette King is the Minister of Justice. It is a pity she will not consider the merits of the case herself (she cites conflict as she is also Police Minister) as I have considerable regard for her judgement and ability. I think she could and would see the bigger picture (it is not just about Ellis who is now free – it is about the wider justice system). Lianne Dalziel can not be delegated the case, so it will fall to Clayton Cosgrove or Rick Barker.
The Minister who deals with this needs to be able to consider the issues carefully using their own judgement. They should not merely ask officials for a report and rubber-stamp it. I can tell you now that of course the Ministry of Justice will oppose a Royal Commission into the Ellis case.
I know many (not all) National MPs have a deep concern over the Ellis case. Katherine Rich and Don Brash helped lead the charge a few years ago for such a Commission. While I can in no way speak for them, I am sure National would in no way criticise the Government if it did hold a Royal Commission. And I think all the minor parties would be supportive.
There will be a lot of partisan behaviour this year in the NZ blogosphere. What would be great though is to have as many blogs as possible join a campaign for an Ellis Royal Commission. We have one of the true experts on the case with Poneke, and could keep the case in profile by doing stuff ranging from all displaying a prominent graphic calling for the Royal Commission, to pledging to blog or link to a blog on the issue at least a fortnight or something. I am sure Poneke could generate enough materialfor us to link to or summarise.
Summary of the case history
On 20 November 1991, only 17 days after the Sunday News newspaper featured an article that claimed that satanic ritual abuse was rampant in New Zealand, Sally Ruth, a mother of an infant attending the Christchurch Civic Child Care Centre, made to supervisor Gaye Davidson the first complaint of “inappropriate sexual behaviour” against Peter Ellis. Ellis, 33, was an experienced, qualified pre-school teacher employed by the childcare centre. Ellis was suspended from work the following day. Ruth, referred to by author Lynley Hood as Ms Magnolia, formally complained to police on 25 November. Her child did not disclose abuse to specialist interviewers during the course of subsequent investigation and was not party to later court proceedings. A mass meeting of childcare centre parents was held in December, and rumours fuelled by gossip and media reports flew about amongst the parents and Christchurch citizenry. The first formal allegation made by a child arose in January 1992, but this child had never been enrolled in the Civic childcare centre, and was not a subsequent witness at the trial. On 23 March 1992, the Holmes television show presented an item on the childcare centre. During that item, Karen Zelas (the prosecution’s expert witness) talked about the possibility of abuse at the childcare centre, and listed behaviours that could indicate abuse. On 31 March, there was another significant meeting of parents in Knox Hall, at which a flyer listing “indicators of sexual abuse” was handed out to parents.
Continue reading at: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/r.christie/Introduction.html
Peter Ellis.org website: http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2008/index.htm