Justice Campaigner Complains Re: Steven Wallace
Press release of 22 May 2001
Justice Campaigner unimpressed with Susan Hughes empty statements about 'putting up or shutting up' relating to the issuance of a private prosecution, and death threats to Abbott.
Mr Nottingham has taken the bull by the horns and complained to the Police Complaints Authority about the report of Detective Inspector Pearce clearing Constable Abbott of unlawfully killing Steven Wallace;
'I enclose my complaint to the Police Complaints Authority. I allege that I can prove that Abbott is prima facie liable for at least a manslaughter charge if not outright murder and that the report of Detective BR Pearce is a complete cover-up’ Said Mr Nottingham.
This course of action was always planned by Mr Nottingham once Susan Hughes had declared that she was not prepared to let Abbott, or any of the other Police Officers involved get into the witness box without assurances that effectively, the Officers testimony at the coroners request would not be used against any or all of them.
' Susan is big on brash statements whilst hiding behind a desire to obtain full protection of her clients from self incrimination. Her Clients have already enjoyed that protection from the Police. As for submission that Police Officer A should be given the opportunity to give his evidence from 'an unknown place ' by video link, this is a pathetic transparent attempt to obtain further unfair advantage to protect her client's from ‘messing up' in the stand. For example what kind of 'direction’ of answers could be possible under these suspicious circumstances, whereas in open Court every move of these Officers and counsel would be subject to scrutiny’ Said Mr Nottingham.
Mr Nottingham's reaction to Susan Hughes argument that her reasons for requesting that Abbott’s testimony be given via video-link are due to death threats is simple.
‘The Police are quite capable of putting on enough protection to ensure the safety of Abbott. They do the same for all number of other witnesses. I have had numerous death threats and the Police reaction was to tell me to come back when they were not so busy. Obviously they do not feel that a ‘death threat' relating indirectly to the same incident is important when the victim is not a Police Officer. I accept to an extent that the Police interpretation is correct and that no real threat exists against me or Abbott. Abbott’s paranoia about his life being in danger is the very reason why Steven was killed by Abbott. Susan Hughes and her client should stop playing games and get on with giving evidence which can be used against him.' Said Mr Nottingham.
Mr Nottingham has completed the task that he wished the Police to do and identified his 'would be killer' and will act in his defence in a reasonable, unhurried and appropriate manner.
'The Police were pathetic about the whole incident alleging that they were busy. I managed to track the idiot down and record his voice which matched the recordings we took of him after he had made contact again after the Holmes show aired. I have released those recordings onto the internet site, and will release the 'would be killer 's' identity on the site next week. The release of this idiots identity will be humiliating for his entire family and is the appropriate way to deal with him until the Police bring charges. Somehow I managed to refrain the temptation to use the ‘Abbott Answer’ (now Police precedent) i.e. to get two of my ‘big mates' and two 2 tonne cars and promote an incident and bring down the unarmed offender with a Glock `subjectively' excusing my actions due to the fact that he bad threatened my life' Said Mr Nottingham.
Mr Nottingham can be contacted on 627-4412 or (09) 480-2795, or otherwise by fax on (09) 480-2796 or email DNottingham@AdvanatageAdvocacy.co.nz.
ATTACHED - LETTER TO THE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY
21 May 2001
The Police Complaints Authority
Re: The killing of Steven Wallace by Keith Abbott
1. As the Authority will no doubt be aware Advantage Advocacy published the photograph of Keith Abbott incorporated in a preliminary report authored by the writer on it's website www.advantageadvocacy.co.nz. The website allows the browser to view the picture only after affirmatively 'clicking' on the specific request. Over 100,000 hits have been recorded, and only 16 unique hits have not desired to see Abbott.
2. The writers report is an extensive criticism of the investigation of the killing by the local New Plymouth Police and the final conclusions by Detective Inspector BR Pearce which are a direct contraindication with the evidence contained in the report, or otherwise now available to the police. The media of New Zealand have chosen to turn a blind eye to the obvious fact that the Police report on the killing, and its conclusions are farcical and incomprehensible.
3. I believe that the report is nothing but a completely corrupt document, which can not be left to stand as the Police's last words on the matter of the Killing. I am making a formal complaint against the New Zealand Police Service in relation to the investigation it carried out into the Killing of Steven Wallace by one of its serving officers. I believe that I can establish that the Police have purposefully omitted to investigate certain avenues which when investigated will establish that Abbott did plan and promote the use of lethal force, when that force was unnecessary and grossly negligent, i.e. manslaughter at a minimum.
4. This case is not a complicated case at all. And the law in relation to what constitutes murder or indeed manslaughter is not complicated. I concede that there are issues of the weight of certain evidence, but that is for a jury and not the New Zealand Police.
5. It would clearly appear that witness 3, 4, 10 and 14 make out that prima facie Abbott’s allegation that he felt that his life was threatened, and in 'real danger of being taken if he had not acted in the manner he did' was not incontrovertibly true. In any event the test is objective, and not subjective. The place for that test is in Court before a jury and at no time prior. Abbott's promotion of the fatal 'conflict' appears to run in line with the Police's comments before shooting a man they thought was David Toa.
6. Certain parts of the evidence of Abbott can be prima facie proven to be wholly unreliable when even considered against his fellow Police officers statements. Yet D.l. Pearce relies on Abbott’s ‘inconsistencies' to effectively clear Abbott, (without a trial) of an unlawful killing. This is a disgrace and a breach of the Bill of Rights Act. A fair trial is appropriate in all of the circumstances that prevail considering the evidence which does not consistently clear Abbott of wrongdoing.
7. I am bitterly complaining that I believe that a Police cover-up has occurred and that I believe that I can establish to the PCA that it should suggest that there be an independent inquiry into the killing and indeed the investigation of the killing by the Police. I desire to be interviewed (unfortunately by the Police), in relation to my complaint so that I can fully put my case to the Authority.