What Tony Veitch got away with

Well, technically he may never have done this stuff, but then again, if he so strongly believed he was innocent like he did in August, he’d have been happy to defend the charges…

The charges that were dropped are:

Injuring with reckless disregard: 
January 29, 2006.

Male assaults female:
December 18, 2006, at AucklandDropped

Male assaults female: 
November 5, 2005, at AucklandDropped

Male assaults female: 
July 8, 2005, at AucklandDropped

Male assaults female: 
June 3-4, 2005, at RotoruaDropped

Male assaults female: 
Between April 14, 2003, and April 9, 2005, at MangawhaiDropped

Male assaults female: 
Between March 15, 2002, and April 19, 2003, at AucklandDropped

This can only leave the impression that some of the allegations had substance, hence him doing a plea bargain to avoid prision. It also shows an alarming pattern, this wasn’t a one off thing like Veitch pretended when he claimed he “lashed out”, yeah sure, he seems to have “lashed out” quite a bit!

Advertisements
    • Lyn
    • April 16th, 2009

    Got away with???????????? He was shafted

    • huh? how so, you kick someone around and you think that’s ok? How does getting a very limp slap on the wrist with a soaking wet bus ticket equal getting shafted?

    • VG
    • April 17th, 2009

    What a foolish, one-sided post.

    Veitch hasn’t been caught telling any lies – he admitted early on to his guilt & regret over the one incident, the one he pleaded guilty to on April 16, the one he referred to back in July 2008 when he said he “lashed out”.

    These other charges that appeared later on to strengthen the case, (water throwing, pinning down by the shoulders etc) were never mentioned when the story broke, and they were later dropped, I’m not surprised, Prosecution couldn’t find anyone but Mis Dunne-Powell that knew Veitch as a serial violent offender. Not one ex-girlfriend from the past was in the newspapers to back up her claims of a violent history. Not one photograph of brusing, not one bashing story from a friend or family member of Kristin DP’s. Not one – and they were looking for them.

    “he’d of been happy to defend the charges”
    Possibly, if you were to make that decision for him you would have to tell him the following
    1. Wait 2 years until trial started
    2. Wait 2 more years until he can move forward with his life
    3. Subject his wife and family to 2 more years of the media circus they had endured for last 9 months
    4. Fork out many hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for a trial
    5. Not count on working a journalist job until resolution of the trail

    • Not foolish enough to stop you commenting.

      Oh sure, this is like how politicians don’t tell lies, in a pure legal sense your right, but the ‘truth’ such that is it, get’s twisted.

      I listened to Mr Veitch this morning on National Radio and it only made me feel more strongly about the way he’s handled this.

      I agree with you that in his position it’s a natural human reaction to avoid any further hassels the two year wait would entail. However, he insists he was innocent and this was a one off event, as he said a number of times “this wasn’t really ‘him'” implying that his behaviour in this one situation was entirely out of character. He wants his name cleared, and who wouldn’t given the allegations, but, and there’s a huge BUT, he can’t discuss the other allegations because of the plea bargain… so the effect is we’ll never know what happened. All rather neat, he can claim he was innocent, but won’t say why or discuss the detail because he legally can’t.

      Look, I’d be the first one to accept his innocence if it’d gone through court and the allegations turned out to be false, but my point in a number of posts, is that we’ll never know.

      Veitch is a clever guy, he specialises in talking, he’s been well coached by lawyers and understands the legal implications of what he can and can’t say. This is someone who clearly knows what he’s done, and the effects of what he says. He carefully qualifies everything – hell he’d make a great policitician because it’s what he doesn’t say that important. The careful qualifications and use of language and repetition of simple points in different ways leaves one with the impression of careful legal coaching and getting his ‘message’ across to an audience.

      I feel the Judges comments are apt, this is someone who brought this upon themselves. He could have handled this differently, but this is the path he’s chosen (as he’s entitled too) and he must expect that by playing it out like this it’s possible to see it all as being carefully orchestrated to get a particular message across, and hence some people might form the opinion that the truth and his ‘version’ of events might be somewhat different.

      But like I said, we’ll never know.

    • VG
    • April 18th, 2009

    Consumist I agree, he hasn’t come off looking good, and doesn’t appear to have played his hand very well at all. Mainly because it doesn’t appear the “unknown” aspect to this mess will become public knowledge anytime soon. Speculation runs rife.

    The deal that was offered and taken was a good way to get this whole thing over with and move on, but it was a deal that heavily favoured the prosecution, because Veitch now cannot answer those tacked on charges that he announced he was to going to defend himself against, and looks to have bargained himself out of more trouble.

    But I will not be joining the brigade claiming he has “got away” with anything, and Veitch has a pattern of violent behaviour. There is only person on the planet that claims he does, and it is a disgruntled ex-girlfriend that decided years later, when Tony was marrying another, it was time to make him pay.

    • intexaswe execute
    • April 18th, 2009

    veitch got off. VG is an idiot. let me explain why. this douchbag sits around and circle jerks about how the “deal” favored the prosecution and veitch cant answer to the charges. WTF. stop smoking the stuff that has ruined the fabric of nz society. stay away from the p.

    by not sentencing veitch to prison time, the son of a bitch got off. he broke a woman’s back and convinced her it was her fault and made her shut the fuck up.

    this guy is a sociopath, a psycho, and anyone defending him is either his bitch, got an alternative motive, or pecuniary interest, or is a woman hater, or is a fool. i cant think of anyone else that would want to defend scum – oh i suppose if you belong to a religion or cult that believes women are less than men something like that.

    the fact is, brainless people talk when they should be listening and this is a terrible result for justice.

    so kids here’s what you gotta do, get famous, make money and do whatever the fuck you like then because you are famous and got money you dont have to worry about breaking a woman’s back.

    who cares if she is a disgruntled ex girlfriend – if you break someones back they probably gonna be disgruntled dont ya think? u people are really dumb.

    what should have happened is the bitch laying on the ground with the broken back should have been armed with a pistol in her purse and shot his nuts off and left him to bleed to death. why?

    CAUSE HE BROKE THE BACK OF A HELPLESS WOMAN that’s why. no excuses cut his nuts off and let him bleed to death.

    🙂

    and if you disagree with me, fuck you too.

    • Mark Jones
    • April 20th, 2009

    Intexaswe execute, my god! All this time I didn’t realise that you were there and saw everything that went on between them. That is the only way someone could make comments like you have. Otherwise your comments would appear to be from a disgruntled, man hating, not so well educated moron who is incapable of being objective. Your last line really sums up your mentality, brilliant, just brilliant.

    • P
    • April 22nd, 2009

    Tony Veitch broke a woman’s back in two places. He would have done that by kicking her when she was down. He later claimed that he ‘lashed out’. He also later claimed that, while she was lying on the ground crying in agony, he lay on his bed and wished that she would shut up.
    Later on, he paid her hush money.
    Two years after the event, the story got out. Turns out she naively told the story to a journalist.
    He has a volley of lawyers; he has PR; he has spin doctors. She has … her story.
    He said he “lashed out”. Well, I’m sorry, but I’m a believer of domestic violence is not okay. I note that he has not once expressed remorse that he hurt this woman and broke her back – the only remorse he has expressed is towards his career, and that he had to lie there and listen to her moaning. Quite frankly, I don’t think someone who can attack someone in such a way should be in a position to influence other people. He should not have a career on television, on radio, or in the media at all.
    What has Tony Veitch lost? His career? No, he still appears on TV and on radio. His family? No. Two years of his life or the ability to walk? No.
    He should have gone to jail. Domestic Violence is not okay.

    • Well put P, this does seem to be the issue that is getting missed, and it’s really quite simple. Do we think this sort of violence is OK or not? The spin crew Veitch has employed are doing a good job of distracting the MSM from this quite basic issue.

  1. April 16th, 2009

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: